When Confronted with An Explanation that is Based on Mathematics

[LokiV]

Poor, poor, poor example talking about basketball or sports in general guys. Your argument is great for a NUMBERS game but the mindset of a player as well as outside conditions influence them on a game by game (and second by second) basis so that their '% of making the next shot' is not always static, but unable to be analyzed so closely due to small sample size of that game (say a player takes 30 shots) versus the larger season/career.

You are overlooking the fact that confidence can win sports competitions. It cannot turn a poker hand into a winner or let you roll well in craps.

Revise the argument so that you are not open to such an easy (intuitive! ha) criticism.

[Triumph36]

LokiV, I agree, and that's what I was saying in my previous post. But right there in your objection you're showing the flaws of statistical analysis in general.

I think Doyle Brunson's argument about the 'rush' is what we're talking about here. I don't have Super/System on me but as I remember, Brunson is vague about whether or not the 'rush' is something real (that big hands tend to follow on one another, which is a clear fallacy), or whether it is simply perceived to be real (a player tends to be more believable if he's been showing down winners all night).

Anyway, people disagree with statistics mainly because they don't live long enough and don't have good enough memories to see that by and large these things are true. In a game like limit poker, that disbelief is deadly.

[Rudbaeck]

Confidence in your ability to influence opponent behaviour can make many a dicy hand never having to go to showdown.

But I don't see what your reply had to do with mine. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Doyle Brunson's argument about the 'rush' is what we're talking about here. I don't have Super/System on me but as I remember, Brunson is vague about whether or not the 'rush' is something real (that big hands tend to follow on one another, which is a clear fallacy), or whether it is simply perceived to be real (a player tends to be more believable if he's been showing down winners all night).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Doyle meant that if you get pocket rockets twice in a row you are much more likely than usual to get a quality hand next deal as well.
But with his personal history I'd be a bit superstitious as well. (Praying, cancer, only winning sessions for almost a year etc.)

[kalooki45]

re the hot hand:
As a musician, I can tell you reams about muscle memory. It's not a theory-it's a fact. That's what practice is creating.
In young children who study music, as they practice they are actually building nerve pathways. This process becomes much slower as we age, but I think it can still happen (given enough repetion) up to a certain age.
I enjoy watching athletes perform, because I relate to what they are doing physically.
I can ALWAYS tell you if a free throw will go in, simply by watching the player prepare and release his shot. I don't have to see the trajectory of the ball--just the player.
You can tell when they are mentally prepared, and when the physical follow-through is accomplished perfectly--just LOOK at them closely.
They are all talented, and when they "do what they do" the right way--they will sink the shot. They have YEARS of muscle memory at those distances, heights, etc. But you can also see any slight lapse of concentration, physical fatigue, edginess, etc. This will prevent them from sinking the shot.

[Myrtle]

Attempting to connect performance in sports and provable statistical probabilities in poker is comparing apples to oranges. Anyone who has made a serious study of performance in sports will be able to easily point out the differences. For example.......hitting a baseball.

You may be able to accurately predict a batters’ likely performance (in the long run) based upon his statistical history, but, there are many overriding factors where attempting to predict an individual event (a single upcoming at-bat) would be foolish. Take a career .333 hitter......EVERYTHING BEING EQUAL, he is more than likely going to get a hit in tonight’s game if he gets to the plate three times.........UNLESS........

..........he’s got the flu.....pulled a groin muscle......been run over by a truck........etc. etc.

A players’ ability to play to their historical performance level is determined by a multitude of variables. The many thousands of hours that a hitter spends in the batting cage are about a few critical things. Given that the player possesses the raw ability (strength, hand-to-eye coordination, etc); it’s all about what is commonly referred to as “muscle memory”. Practice does NOT make perfect...........PERFECT practice makes perfect!!

So with respect, I have to disagree with Paul2432’s using his ‘hot hand’ analogy. It is a misapplication of math as it disregards the ‘ceteris paribus’ (all else being equal) rule. Disraeli hit it right on the head......”lies, damned lies....and statistics”.

As far a poker.......a number of posters here have posited their thoughts about how many players favor intuition, ‘common sense’ (theirs), or some other belief based thought process over the certainty of statistical probability. The problem that I see with this is that both intuition and common sense are unique to each individual, and are based mainly upon whatever perspective each person has on the subject being discussed. Perspective, of course, is relative; hence the sometimes wide and differing points of view one encounters.......Religion, anybody??!!

I’m not a math guy, but just because I cannot fathom the complexities of some of the mathematical models that have been proven to be correct is no reason for me to dismiss them, as many appear to be perfectly comfortable doing. As another poster said, I choose to believe those math experts that have done the leg work of proof to a point of acceptability amongst their expert peers. If any of the basic math foundation ‘stuff’ that we use today to formulate basic strategy was incorrect, there would be public, active disagreement and debate amongst the math ‘guys’.

Anyway, to get back to adios’ original post.........My guess is that most people dismiss mathematical model explanations because they don’t trust anything that doesn’t make sense in their own personal universe. This does seem to be a common theme in the history of man, does it not?

This is the Psychology Forum, so I assume that we’re looking for psychologically based explanations as to some of this behavior? Well, hell....I’m likely as good (or bad) an outhouse shrink as the next guy, so for my 2 cents worth I’d say it boils down to two things.........

Open mindedness....Are we willing to constantly challenge our own beliefs and understanding of the world around us in order to increase our knowledge and awareness?

Self-honesty.....Are we willing to be as brutally honest with ourselves as necessary in order to accomplish this?

All we can do is try............

[David Sklansky]

Three obvious explanations:

People who are not good or knwledgeable at math will not accept mathematical models, even simple ones because:

1. There is a tremendous implication regarding themselves, if in fact, it often requires math beyond their ken to explain things. Thus their is a stong psychological defense mechanism to deny it.

2. Those times thay have been shown how math explains things they don't understand it and thus disbelieve that it works as well as it does (when done right).

3. Most mathmeticians who try to model things do a lousy job.

[Cyrus]

You want to buy a new car.

And since you are a diligent fellow, you purchase all the trade magazines, google the internet, etc, to identify the best value for your budget range. After a week's thorough research, and scanning over oodles of statistics, opinion polls, experts' polls, etc etc, you have narrowed it down to the best car for you, the Croco 8000 (for example), which combines the best safety, speed, etc, for the price costs that you can afford. Alright! You settle on the Croco 8000 and decide to buy it first thing Saturday morning.

The same evening you are invited to a cocktail party and, you mingle, the issue of your new car comes up. A man you met at the party, and had a long and very enjoyable talk about favourite movie actresses, tells you that the Croco 8000 is an unreliable car. Why, only last week his first cousin had a near fatal accident because the steering wheel locked when making a turn! And the price is a ridiculous theft; it should retail much, much lower.

You are shaken in your conviction. Next morning, you strike off the Croco 8000 from your list and start looking anew.

...What happened here, if you step back and think about it a little, is that you have chosen one man's anecdotal (and possibly not very reliable) testimony against the combined wisdom of experts and the buying public. This, however, is not an atypical scenario *. This is how a lot (if not most) people take decisions!

Although "mathematics" (i.e. probability theory, algebra, game theory, etc) often provides us with the correct choice, we humans do not always (or usually) follow its advice -- for many reasons.

And the people who behave this way (i.e. "irrationally") are NOT just people with mediocre intelligence. David Sklansky speculated elsewhere that around 5% of the people have the ability to get a PhD in Physics, implying that approximately that percent of people have what is commonly termed "the smarts". But a whole bunch of choice experiments conducted with psychologists, economists or statisticians as subjects, have shown that they are no different at all from "common people" in terms of heuristics! (And, sometimes, the self-correction factor of the experiment's subjects is insignificant even after the subjects have been properly trained for the kind of choice they will be presented with.)

Now, is that really "the smarts"? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

A work is waiting to be written about people's choices in gambling games, and particularly poker, and about the potential for driving (controlling) those choices. Perhaps when I go to jail.


<font color="white"> .</font>


* : The example is lifted from Thaler.

[EliteNinja]

People are just dumb.

[MicroBob]

Some thoughts on sports and hot-shooter theory:


Hitting a baseball is different than making a basket.

In baseball, you are facing a couple of different pitchers everyday. In this 1-on-1 matchup there are some pitchers who are going to give certain batters fits...and it doesn't have to just be definable like 'left-handed curve-ball specialists'. Some pitchers styles or even psychological approaches (example: "he thinks I'll waste a pitch away with an 0-2 count....and rarely expects me to fire a heater on the inside corner in this situation") can give some batters fits even if the rest of the league is lighting them up for 7 runs a game.

In hoops, you're always shooting at the same hoop. Same height, generally the same types of shots, etc. So it is easier to compare the success rate of a 'hot-shooter' with the streaks one would normally expect to happen for a 50% shooter in a computer simulated game.
Of course, defensive schemes change and players get more intelligent and adjust as well so perhaps it really ISN'T that much different than baseball.
Lebron James is a much better player this year because he is improving his shot-selection. When the opposition tries to double-team him he is getting MUCH better at turning down a bad shooting opportunity and finding an open teammate. This, in turn will give him more good shooting opportunities on later possessions as teams are forced to guard the other scorers.
So....in basketball...it's not JUST about "take the shot. make the shot." It's a bit more complex than that.

I could be a 60% shooter in a series of games against junior-high kids...but if you put me on the floor against a bunch of D-1 players I would be lucky if I could make many shots at all even with an offense specifically designed to make me the premier scorer on the team.

However, I think even I could score a few points in the NBA if I had Michael Jordan or Lebron James or John Stockton trying to dish me the ball.

See?? Change the teammates or change the opposition or just a change in the defense within the course of the game effects the shooting percentages.


Additionally, there are some players who don't do terribly well when there is pressure and others who tend to rise to the occasion MORE when the pressure is greater.

Perhaps this is all within the mathematical norm....but I do believe that some players have a lesser chance of getting a base-hit or making an important basket when the game is on the line simply because of the psychological differences in the situation.