What kind of beer is everyone drinking tonight? (1 Viewer)

[Kilgore Trout]

I didnt like the over all flavor of it. It is still hard for me to describe this stuff but it was just weird.

ETA: Am I way off base here? What does everyone else think of it?

It is a pretty weird beer. Its a 'steam' beer, which is basically a beer that uses a lager yeast that is fermented at higher temperatures like an ale. It isn't my favorite style, but I like it for its uniqueness and once every blue moon I might buy a six pack. I've always wondered why more brewers don't try this style. Experimenting with the malt and hop profile could make an interesting beer. My friend had a homebrew 'steam' that turned out pretty good.

 

[The Gator]

I didnt like the over all flavor of it. It is still hard for me to describe this stuff but it was just weird.

ETA: Am I way off base here? What does everyone else think of it?

It is a pretty weird beer. Its a 'steam' beer, which is basically a beer that uses a lager yeast that is fermented at higher temperatures like an ale. It isn't my favorite style, but I like it for its uniqueness and once every blue moon I might buy a six pack. I've always wondered why more brewers don't try this style. Experimenting with the malt and hop profile could make an interesting beer. My friend had a homebrew 'steam' that turned out pretty good.

Thanks. Maybe I'll try it again after i become more experienced.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Reading through these last few posts reminded me of the beer draft we did a little over a year ago. Its always amazing looking back a year or two and seeing how your tastes evolve as you try more and more beers. Here is a link to the post with the final beer six packs we made. Quite a few of you were not involved in that one. I wouldn't mind trying this again sometime.

 

[Skylord]

Reading through these last few posts reminded me of the beer draft we did a little over a year ago. Its always amazing looking back a year or two and seeing how your tastes evolve as you try more and more beers. Here is a link to the post with the final beer six packs we made. Quite a few of you were not involved in that one. I wouldn't mind trying this again sometime.

Some of those six packs simply suck

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Some of those six packs simply suck

It was a mix of craft brew drinkers and 'regular' beer drinkers. A lot of good beer was left out.

 

[Wingnut]

So I got a p-mail from Wingnut that said he is indeed the mayor of this community...and that I should have known better.

Thought that was pretty funny...

Riiiiiiiiight. Link?

I can't figure out how to link it. Anyway, congrats!

This whole thread says otherwise:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...2entry4865822

 

[dotman]

<-----

Normally I don't drink on weekdays, but I have to build up the tolerance for this weekend, so I'm puttin' down some Lagers.

 

[BRONG]

So I got a p-mail from Wingnut that said he is indeed the mayor of this community...and that I should have known better.

Thought that was pretty funny...

Riiiiiiiiight. Link?

I can't figure out how to link it. Anyway, congrats!

This whole thread says otherwise:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...2entry4865822

Wingnut. LAUGH.

 

[3C's]

Man, why'd I go to bed early when the class clown (Nuc) was here. Good stuff!

 

[mr. furley]

I'll be leaving soon. I'll be home in about 7 minutes.

i can trump that. 3 minutes door to door.

 

[mr. furley]

Oh yeah. Sorry, you are correct and I am drunk. I've bought so much ####ing beer lately that I can't keep it straight. You #######s in BIF and BOTMC club have me spending far too much damn time messing with this and I think my wife just left me for good. I'll have to check after I finish my beer. Thanks for the correction though, as I know I have SOME of that stuff downstairs.

Fair enough? Or will I have to start insulting Furley again?

ETA: Isn't it sad that I had to edit my swear words?

your wife left you for mei think

gonna have to check my harem when i get home again

the posses's gettin' bigger, there's much too many freaks

the muffler's draggin', my suspension's gettin weak

 

[3C's]

The top 10 rated Barleywines at BA:

http://beeradvocate.com/top_beers?style=19

Once again their fuzzy math kicks out higher rated beers. I've had 5 on the list. Don't know that I've seen the others.

 

[mr. furley]

Bax was shown my current beer selection last night and told me I needed to post some pictures for the rest of the drunks. Here you go.

Small Beer Fridge

The "Cellar"

what do you think of the Harbor City's?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Once again their fuzzy math kicks out higher rated beers. I've had 5 on the list. Don't know that I've seen the others.

I've had 3 on the list (Old Ruffian, Bigfoot, and Insanity). I have to agree the the Old Ruffian is the best Barleywine that I have had, but I haven't had Stone's or Victory's, as well as the rest of the top 10. Which other higher rated beers are you talking about?

 

[Tip Top]

Bax was shown my current beer selection last night and told me I needed to post some pictures for the rest of the drunks. Here you go.

Small Beer Fridge

The "Cellar"

what do you think of the Harbor City's?

Average at best.

 

[mr. furley]

Going to rate my New Glarus Cherry Stout from Tip Top.

This beer is seriously tasty.  GB New Glarus and those insane cherries they use.

Its not listed on ba edit: Nevermind. I was looking at the wrong brewery

 

[mr. furley]

So I got a p-mail from Wingnut that said he is indeed the mayor of this community...and that I should have known better. 

Thought that was pretty funny...

Riiiiiiiiight. Link?

I can't figure out how to link it. Anyway, congrats!

:screenshot:

 

[mr. furley]

Bax was shown my current beer selection last night and told me I needed to post some pictures for the rest of the drunks.  Here you go.

Small Beer Fridge

The "Cellar"

what do you think of the Harbor City's?

Average at best.

good.i keep passing them up at the store.

always curious but never bold enough to actually pick one up.

 

[3C's]

Once again their fuzzy math kicks out higher rated beers. I've had 5 on the list. Don't know that I've seen the others.

I've had 3 on the list (Old Ruffian, Bigfoot, and Insanity). I have to agree the the Old Ruffian is the best Barleywine that I have had, but I haven't had Stone's or Victory's, as well as the rest of the top 10. Which other higher rated beers are you talking about?

In this case, Oak Aged Millenium. 417 review average, but their weighted average has it at 3.91, I think.

 

[3C's]

So I got a p-mail from Wingnut that said he is indeed the mayor of this community...and that I should have known better.

Thought that was pretty funny...

Riiiiiiiiight. Link?

I can't figure out how to link it. Anyway, congrats!

:screenshot:

You seem to know this process well.

 

[mr. furley]

Gator's review of a Sierra Nevada IPA

"Very good beer. i don't know WTF India has to do with it but it is good none the less. One of the better I've had from Sierra Nevada. I dont know how to discribe all the malty, hoppy, stuff. All i know is this one is good. Nice strong flavor and easily drunk, or drank. Whichever is correct."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In this case, Oak Aged Millenium. 417 review average, but their weighted average has it at 3.91, I think.

I wish they would be a little more forthright with the way they do their ratings. I was just reviewing the Imperial Stout list, and the overall weighted avg. for the Stone RIS is 4.45 while the rating average is 4.51. The Dark Lord is has its weighted avg. at 4.44 but the rating avg. is 4.62. The standard deviation is a bit higher for the Dark Lord, which explains part of their formula. But what about the rest of it?

 

[3C's]

In this case, Oak Aged Millenium. 417 review average, but their weighted average has it at 3.91, I think.

I wish they would be a little more forthright with the way they do their ratings. I was just reviewing the Imperial Stout list, and the overall weighted avg. for the Stone RIS is 4.45 while the rating average is 4.51. The Dark Lord is has its weighted avg. at 4.44 but the rating avg. is 4.62. The standard deviation is a bit higher for the Dark Lord, which explains part of their formula. But what about the rest of it?

Todd's formula is there somewhere. Or used to be. Can't find it.

 

[3C's]

Found it:

The general formula uses a Bayesian estimate:weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × Cwhere:R = review average for the beerv = number of reviews for the beerm = minimum reviews required to be listed (currently 42)C = the mean across the list (currently 3.72)The formula normalizes scores, that is pulls ® to the mean © if the number of reviews is not well above (m). So if a beer has only a few reviews above (m), its (WR) is decreased a little if it is above the mean ©, or increased a little if it is below the mean © in accordance with the normal distribution rule of statistics.Currently, a beer must have 5 or > reviews to be included in any calculations. And (m) is calculated by averaging the number of reviews for beers that have 5 or > reviews within the list being viewed, while © is the mean (average) overall score for all beers that have or > reviews within the list.Example 1: (a beer with a 4.35 review average and 105 reviews)(105 ÷ (105+42)) × 4.35 + (42 ÷ (105+42)) × 3.72 = 4.17 = WRExample 2: (a beer with a 3.1 review average and 6 reviews)(6 ÷ (6+42)) × 3.1 + (42 ÷ (6+42)) × 3.72 = 3.64 = WR

ETA:

 

[Winston Smith]

Reading through these last few posts reminded me of the beer draft we did a little over a year ago.  Its always amazing looking back a year or two and seeing how your tastes evolve as you try more and more beers.  Here is a link to the post with the final beer six packs we made.  Quite a few of you were not involved in that one.  I wouldn't mind trying this again sometime.

Actually, this needs to happen NOW. With the hardcore folks we have around here, this could be quite a competition.**- or a

Who's in?

 

[Nucular George]

Reading through these last few posts reminded me of the beer draft we did a little over a year ago.  Its always amazing looking back a year or two and seeing how your tastes evolve as you try more and more beers.  Here is a link to the post with the final beer six packs we made.  Quite a few of you were not involved in that one.  I wouldn't mind trying this again sometime.

Actually, this needs to happen NOW. With the hardcore folks we have around here, this could be quite a competition.**- or a

Who's in?

I vote: Unless we exclude Furley. Then we'll be fine.

Oh, and IN.

 

[The Gator]

Reading through these last few posts reminded me of the beer draft we did a little over a year ago.  Its always amazing looking back a year or two and seeing how your tastes evolve as you try more and more beers.  Here is a link to the post with the final beer six packs we made.  Quite a few of you were not involved in that one.  I wouldn't mind trying this again sometime.

Actually, this needs to happen NOW. With the hardcore folks we have around here, this could be quite a competition.**- or a

Who's in?

 

[Winston Smith]

OK, the list for the ***OFFICIAL*** FFA Beer Snob Craft Brew Draft:

Winston Smith

Nucular George

The Gator

 

[Tip Top]

OK, the list for the ***OFFICIAL*** FFA Beer Snob Craft Brew Draft:

Winston Smith

Nuclear George

The Gator

ETA on draft time?

 

[Nucular George]

OK, the list for the ***OFFICIAL*** FFA Beer Snob Craft Brew Draft:

Winston Smith

Nuclear George

The Gator

1.1 Old Style LightSOD

 

[The Gator]

Found it:

The general formula uses a Bayesian estimate:

weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

where:

R = review average for the beer

v = number of reviews for the beer

m = minimum reviews required to be listed (currently 42)

C = the mean across the list (currently 3.72)

The formula normalizes scores, that is pulls ® to the mean © if the number of reviews is not well above (m). So if a beer has only a few reviews above (m), its (WR) is decreased a little if it is above the mean ©, or increased a little if it is below the mean © in accordance with the normal distribution rule of statistics.

Currently, a beer must have 5 or > reviews to be included in any calculations. And (m) is calculated by averaging the number of reviews for beers that have 5 or > reviews within the list being viewed, while © is the mean (average) overall score for all beers that have or > reviews within the list.

Example 1: (a beer with a 4.35 review average and 105 reviews)

(105 ÷ (105+42)) × 4.35 + (42 ÷ (105+42)) × 3.72 = 4.17 = WR

Example 2: (a beer with a 3.1 review average and 6 reviews)

(6 ÷ (6+42)) × 3.1 + (42 ÷ (6+42)) × 3.72 = 3.64 = WR

ETA:

Does that math work out right?(105 ÷ (105+42)) × 4.35 + (42 ÷ (105+42)) × 3.72 = 4.17 = WR

.715 x 4.35 + .286 x 3.72 = 12.65

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Found it:

The general formula uses a Bayesian estimate:

weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

where:

R = review average for the beer

v = number of reviews for the beer

m = minimum reviews required to be listed (currently 42)

C = the mean across the list (currently 3.72)

The formula normalizes scores, that is pulls ® to the mean © if the number of reviews is not well above (m). So if a beer has only a few reviews above (m), its (WR) is decreased a little if it is above the mean ©, or increased a little if it is below the mean © in accordance with the normal distribution rule of statistics.

Currently, a beer must have 5 or > reviews to be included in any calculations. And (m) is calculated by averaging the number of reviews for beers that have 5 or > reviews within the list being viewed, while © is the mean (average) overall score for all beers that have or > reviews within the list.

Example 1: (a beer with a 4.35 review average and 105 reviews)

(105 ÷ (105+42)) × 4.35 + (42 ÷ (105+42)) × 3.72 = 4.17 = WR

Example 2: (a beer with a 3.1 review average and 6 reviews)

(6 ÷ (6+42)) × 3.1 + (42 ÷ (6+42)) × 3.72 = 3.64 = WR

ETA:

So basically, if 2 beers have the same average user rating, than the one with the most reviews will get the higher score. It really is weighted to beers that are more popular. Which is fine, I guess. I actually thought it would be more complicated. I just plugged the formula into an Excel Spreadsheet. A beer would need to be reviewed over 10,000 times to get within half a thousandth of a point (the differenece between 4.445 and 4.450) of its actual user rating.Other interesting fact is that Dark Lord needs about 18 more reviews to push it ahead of Stone RIS (if Stone didn't get any more reviews and the rating for Dark Lord remained the same)

 

[Nucular George]

OK, the list for the ***OFFICIAL*** FFA Beer Snob Craft Brew Draft:

Winston Smith

Nuclear George

The Gator

And please spell the name right. After all, our esteemed President says the word correctly......

 

[Winston Smith]

OK, the list for the ***OFFICIAL*** FFA Beer Snob Craft Brew Draft:

Winston Smith

Nuclear George

The Gator

ETA on draft time?

I would envision getting started maybe noonish tomorrow, maybe Friday morning. But that's obviously up to everyone, as would be format, number of rounds, time for making picks, etc.

 

[Winston Smith]

OK, the list for the ***OFFICIAL*** FFA Beer Snob Craft Brew Draft:

Winston Smith

Nuclear George

The Gator

And please spell the name right. After all, our esteemed President says the word correctly......

:fixed:

 

[Winston Smith]

OK, the list for the ***OFFICIAL*** FFA Beer Snob Craft Brew Draft:

Winston Smith

Nuclear George

The Gator

ETA on draft time?

I would envision getting started maybe noonish tomorrow, maybe Friday morning. But that's obviously up to everyone, as would be format, number of rounds, time for making picks, etc.

I've got a hearing to attend...talk amongst yourselves about format, etc. Should be back in a few hours.

 

[Tip Top]

OK, the list for the ***OFFICIAL*** FFA Beer Snob Craft Brew Draft:

Winston Smith

Nuclear George

The Gator

ETA on draft time?

I would envision getting started maybe noonish tomorrow, maybe Friday morning. But that's obviously up to everyone, as would be format, number of rounds, time for making picks, etc.

OK, IN.

 

[mr. furley]

Reading through these last few posts reminded me of the beer draft we did a little over a year ago.  Its always amazing looking back a year or two and seeing how your tastes evolve as you try more and more beers.  Here is a link to the post with the final beer six packs we made.  Quite a few of you were not involved in that one.  I wouldn't mind trying this again sometime.

Actually, this needs to happen NOW. With the hardcore folks we have around here, this could be quite a competition.**- or a

Who's in?

OOTi'm unqualified. i'd just be going straight off the BA top 100.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Does that math work out right?

(105 ÷ (105+42)) × 4.35 + (42 ÷ (105+42)) × 3.72 = 4.17 = WR

.715 x 4.35 + .286 x 3.72 = 12.65

.715 x 4.35 = 3.11

.286 x 3.72 = 1.06

4.17

 

[Nucular George]

Reading through these last few posts reminded me of the beer draft we did a little over a year ago.  Its always amazing looking back a year or two and seeing how your tastes evolve as you try more and more beers.  Here is a link to the post with the final beer six packs we made.  Quite a few of you were not involved in that one.  I wouldn't mind trying this again sometime.

Actually, this needs to happen NOW. With the hardcore folks we have around here, this could be quite a competition.**- or a

Who's in?

OOTi'm unqualified. i'd just be going straight off the BA top 100.

Well if my alias isn't in, then I should reconsider.OK, still IN.

 

[The Gator]

Does that math work out right?

(105 ÷ (105+42)) × 4.35 + (42 ÷ (105+42)) × 3.72 = 4.17 = WR

.715 x 4.35 + .286 x 3.72 = 12.65 

.715 x 4.35 = 3.11

.286 x 3.72 = 1.06

4.17

 

[Winston Smith]

Reading through these last few posts reminded me of the beer draft we did a little over a year ago.  Its always amazing looking back a year or two and seeing how your tastes evolve as you try more and more beers.  Here is a link to the post with the final beer six packs we made.  Quite a few of you were not involved in that one.  I wouldn't mind trying this again sometime.

Actually, this needs to happen NOW. With the hardcore folks we have around here, this could be quite a competition.**- or a

Who's in?

OOTi'm unqualified. i'd just be going straight off the BA top 100.

X

 

[Kilgore Trout]

OOT

i'm unqualified. i'd just be going straight off the BA top 100.

I'm going to sit back and see how many people do this before I say yes. I would like to give others a chance. Several things to consider. One is do you limit it by style? In the last draft we had to draft a lager, an ale, a porter/stout, a foriegn beer, and 2 flex beers to finish out our six pack.Also as Furley mention, you could just draft off the BA top 100, but I think that takes away from the personal aspect. One guy in the last draft just used that list for his cheatsheet, so he hadn't actually drank any of the beer that he had drafted. We never made the rule that you had to drink it, but in hindsight I would have liked that rule.

 

[mr. furley]

Other interesting fact is that Dark Lord needs about 18 more reviews to push it ahead of Stone RIS (if Stone didn't get any more reviews and the rating for Dark Lord remained the same)

i've got a 2006 in the basement. scared to drink it. otherwise it'd be 17 more reviews.

 

[mr. furley]

We never made the rule that you had to drink it, but in hindsight I would have liked that rule.

i'd re-consider if this were part of the criteria.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Other interesting fact is that Dark Lord needs about 18 more reviews to push it ahead of Stone RIS (if Stone didn't get any more reviews and the rating for Dark Lord remained the same)

i've got a 2006 in the basement. scared to drink it. otherwise it'd be 17 more reviews.

I'll give you my firstborn for it.

 

[The Gator]

We never made the rule that you had to drink it, but in hindsight I would have liked that rule.

i'd re-consider if this were part of the criteria.

Id only have a draft list 16-20 beers long.

 

[The Gator]

Other interesting fact is that Dark Lord needs about 18 more reviews to push it ahead of Stone RIS (if Stone didn't get any more reviews and the rating for Dark Lord remained the same)

i've got a 2006 in the basement. scared to drink it. otherwise it'd be 17 more reviews.

I'll give you my firstborn for it.

Id be willing to part with a Moto Brew if furley wants to switch.

 

[mr. furley]

Other interesting fact is that Dark Lord needs about 18 more reviews to push it ahead of Stone RIS (if Stone didn't get any more reviews and the rating for Dark Lord remained the same)

i've got a 2006 in the basement. scared to drink it. otherwise it'd be 17 more reviews.

I'll give you my firstborn for it.

Id be willing to part with a Moto Brew if furley wants to switch.

DUN

 

[3C's]

Found it:

The general formula uses a Bayesian estimate:

weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

where:

R = review average for the beer

v = number of reviews for the beer

m = minimum reviews required to be listed (currently 42)

C = the mean across the list (currently 3.72)

The formula normalizes scores, that is pulls ® to the mean © if the number of reviews is not well above (m). So if a beer has only a few reviews above (m), its (WR) is decreased a little if it is above the mean ©, or increased a little if it is below the mean © in accordance with the normal distribution rule of statistics.

Currently, a beer must have 5 or > reviews to be included in any calculations. And (m) is calculated by averaging the number of reviews for beers that have 5 or > reviews within the list being viewed, while © is the mean (average) overall score for all beers that have or > reviews within the list.

Example 1: (a beer with a 4.35 review average and 105 reviews)

(105 ÷ (105+42)) × 4.35 + (42 ÷ (105+42)) × 3.72 = 4.17 = WR

Example 2: (a beer with a 3.1 review average and 6 reviews)

(6 ÷ (6+42)) × 3.1 + (42 ÷ (6+42)) × 3.72 = 3.64 = WR

ETA:

So basically, if 2 beers have the same average user rating, than the one with the most reviews will get the higher score. It really is weighted to beers that are more popular. Which is fine, I guess. I actually thought it would be more complicated. I just plugged the formula into an Excel Spreadsheet. A beer would need to be reviewed over 10,000 times to get within half a thousandth of a point (the differenece between 4.445 and 4.450) of its actual user rating.Other interesting fact is that Dark Lord needs about 18 more reviews to push it ahead of Stone RIS (if Stone didn't get any more reviews and the rating for Dark Lord remained the same)

I think there should be a cutoff of where their weighting affects the average. Say, something like 30 reviews. Maybe 50. By then, high and low reviews shouldn't affect the overall score enough to worry about. They'll have no thought about it though. Funny FAQ:

Q: What if I don't agree with your list?

A: We don't care.

Q: Why isn't {insert beer} listed? That's just wrong!

A: It didn't make the cut. Did you review the beer? If not, then you have even less to complain about.

Q: How can {insert beer} be better than {insert beer}?

A: Ask your first grade math teacher.

Oh, and in for the draft if time allows. Work might get in the way. Speaking of which, time to go.