Quote:
Originally Posted by BPS
That's were we disagree: whether a gambling setting involving pure randomness provides a good simile for an activity involving people (with their complex psychologies,physiological responses, etc).
Indeed, even the simile of Vegas breaks down because some people, using techniques like card counting, can shift the odds in their favor (compared to other people). And, so, some people winning more "than they should' is not explained by a run of good luck. But even luck (good or bad) can overwhelm (for a long time) their shifting of the odds in their favor. For a given day, week, or month a card counter can do even worse than the average gambler because of randomness.
|
well, no counting cards is udnerstanding odds as they shift over time... still just playing the odds with updated info. the results? again, confusing results with probability.. playing odds doesn't mean you will win.. merely best probability.. . so a gambler who is more likely to win (if that exists) can go on extended losing treaks. (only in games vs humans can it be possible, even craps favors the house, even though it has the 'best' odds for the player - even black/red on roulette isn't 50/50 because not all resutls are black or red on the wheel)
same reasons why the "best" team doesn't always have the best regular season winpct nor do they always win the WS. that doesn't prove anythng about them not being the "best" (best - from an omniscient standpoint. there is a "best" team each year, even if we don't recognize it with info/perceptions that we are limited to. the fact it's an open debate of us is irrelevant to truth)
___________ beware, continued beating of the horse ensues: read at your own pleasure or masochistic tendencies
even though baseball is more complex than many games of chance in vegas, it still comes down to a the same dynamics of flipping a coin and laws of probability.. constant change of probabilities one morment to the next due to a large amount of factors, notwithstanding. merely beyond a human brain to compute all of that instantly and real-time.
how are they better? what is the tangible cause of their overperformance? you cannot grow stronger through will.. you cannot improve your coordination through will.. explain how situational context makes someone "better" than their dna and physical attributes? beyond a pschological reason to make them underperform, it simply isn't possible to be better than you are.
if you can show this, i will willingly admit i am wrong about this.. will neer argue with facts... when i am wrong, i adjust to an improved understanding of reality.
there is a cause for everything.. that is reality whether it's within our understanding or not (speaking to seeming infinite complexities relative to a human's capabilities, not condescending). if you cannot prove the causal relationship it most liekly is not true.
you can appraoch theoretical yield based on ability, but you can never surpass it... same with your talent for anything.. sport or scholastic endeavors too.
if any players shows a statsitical anamoly with a suitable sample size for "clutch" performance it doesn't even necessarily prove anytthing.
they are more likely underperforming in other situations for it to be possible, becuase that makes more sense relative to our knoweldge of biology of a human being - ie muslces don't grow due to pure "will". the player simply allows a perceived less important portion of the game to affect their effort.
every out is equally important. the game rules and how you count runs etc doen't change during the 9innings of the game. physics don't change... your body doens't change during course of game outside of what you can control (excludes injury during game and common sense things like that.. you can only make youself worse through a weak-will or anxiety etc.. those psychological things are in our control too).
you can allow context to affect you in a negative way, but it never makes you better than your potential at any given moment.
there's no causality here. only faith and feelings about "clutch." it can't be proven to exist. while you cannot prove non-existence.. if you can't prove it exists, it's very unlikely to be more than a false perception. you are left with only faith and feelings. people felt strongly about he world being flat.. some feel strongly the world is only 5000 years old.. it simply doesn't matter what we think/feel.