Economist wants pokertracker database hands

[gergery]

wanna be famous?

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
wanna be famous?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants someone to hand him a database of a million plus hands and the payoff is "we are confident we can help you be a better poker player. Heck, we'll even throw in a freakonomics t-shirt."

Yeah, that's freakonimcally adequate compensation, all right.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's freakonimcally adequate compensation, all right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I'm sure he's just doing it so he can set up an account on the same site you play at and, with his newfound knowledge of all your Super Secret Poker Moves, "totally pwn" you online.

[DesertCat]

This economist is a tool. He wrote a "study" of Billy Beane and the Oakland A's that was hilariously poorly conceived. I question whether he's capable of rational thought.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
This economist is a tool. He wrote a "study" of Billy Beane and the Oakland A's that was hilariously poorly conceived. I question whether he's capable of rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

His book "Freakonomics" was pretty good, I must say [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

I couldn't find the original "study"/article/whatever it was, but I did find a follow-up one where he responds to some of the concerns people had about it - snippets below:

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the point I am making is so simple that it doesn't require complicated analysis to demonstrate. Oakland was average on offense and phenomenal on pitching. You can control for whatever you want, that story absolutely will not change. So how can you argue that hitting is the reason Oakland won so many games? And I don't think it is reasonable to say that Oakland won't do well in the future because the inefficiencies in the market for OBP have been driven away. Probably they have been driven away, but they were never that important anyway. If Beane were so smart, would he have let Michael Lewis give away the keys to the castle? I doubt it.

...
For all of you who disagree with me - and the betting markets - go to tradesports and bet on the A's. The market thinks they will only win 82 games. If they are as good as you believe, there is a lot of money to be made. And after you all bet and drive the odds up, I will bet the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems pretty confident in his opinion, at least.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This economist is a tool. He wrote a "study" of Billy Beane and the Oakland A's that was hilariously poorly conceived. I question whether he's capable of rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

His book "Freakonomics" was pretty good, I must say [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

I couldn't find the original "study"/article/whatever it was, but I did find a follow-up one where he responds to some of the concerns people had about it - snippets below:

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the point I am making is so simple that it doesn't require complicated analysis to demonstrate. Oakland was average on offense and phenomenal on pitching. You can control for whatever you want, that story absolutely will not change. So how can you argue that hitting is the reason Oakland won so many games? And I don't think it is reasonable to say that Oakland won't do well in the future because the inefficiencies in the market for OBP have been driven away. Probably they have been driven away, but they were never that important anyway. If Beane were so smart, would he have let Michael Lewis give away the keys to the castle? I doubt it.

...
For all of you who disagree with me - and the betting markets - go to tradesports and bet on the A's. The market thinks they will only win 82 games. If they are as good as you believe, there is a lot of money to be made. And after you all bet and drive the odds up, I will bet the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems pretty confident in his opinion, at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with his analysis is that he relies on a straw man argument. His original quote "There's very little evidence Billy Beane [the club's general manager] is doing something right" was absurd.

His central problem was he tried to disprove Moneyball, by pointing out that the A's offensive stats weren't much better than other AL West teams. He claimed that Moneyball implied that the A's succeed by having a higher OBP than other teams, while in reality they had better pitching. Then he hit Billy with another cheap shot, that he was "genius" for getting a sweet deal from the new owner, before starting to rebuild the team.

First of all, Moneyball is a pleasantly enjoyable book, not a theorem. Secondly, despite his misrepresentations, the book doesn't make one central claim, other than that Beane exploited market inefficiencies. Levitt ignored the fact that Oakland's average offensive performance was built on half the payroll of the other AL West teams. And that Beane built a great pitching staff by drafting undervalued college pitchers instead of overvalued high school pitchers, which Moneyball discusses in depth.

Basically Levitt didn't do his research, got everything wrong, and was bombarded mercilessly for it. There has been a great deal of interesting research in baseball (some of which Moneyball summarizes), and he was arrogant enough to think he could start at ground zero and disprove all of it.

So basically I'm still on tilt from this sorry episode. He's actually a really bright guy. I shouldn't let a flip little comment and exercise by Levitt drive my entire opinion of him. If the SOB would admit how poor his analysis in the example was I could. Then I could read his book, which I really want to, but am refusing to until he shows some humility.

[AnyAce]

I have not read the A's piece, so I don't know if its messed up.

However, he did win the Clark Medal for best economist under 40 (2nd most prestigious award in economics after the Nobel).

Levitt wins John Bates Clark Medal
AA

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
This economist is a tool. He wrote a "study" of Billy Beane and the Oakland A's that was hilariously poorly conceived. I question whether he's capable of rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is likely going to win a Nobel Prize if he lives long enough. He's already on the short list and he's under 50.

[Jordan Olsommer]

From what I read, the prize that he's already won (which I can't remember the name of offhand and am too lazy to google at the moment, so I'll just refer to it as the Stanley Clarke prize, because I recall it having the name "clark" in it and also because Stanley Clarke is such a great bass player) is more prestigious in the circle of economists than the Nobel Prize is. So compared to his Stanley Clarke prize, the Nobel just ain't that funky.

It would be funny to see him up there in ridiculous tuxedo saying the word "freakonomics" in his speech, though.

[ClaytonN]

I couldn't help but reply.

Flog me, if you must.