No such thing as luck?

[FreeChile]

Now I am gonna get medievally American on you by talking about the baseball world series. Even though I’ve been a Yankee fan since the 70s, when Reggie Jackson played, I’ve attended very few games. It happens that most of these games, the Yankees have lost, to the point that my Grandmother thought I was jinxing them.

More recently, I was lucky enough to attend the second game of the 2000 subway world series between the Yankees and the Mets. And I can tell you one thing, no amount of voodoo on my part would have jinxed that game. It would have taken an act of God or some mystical force from beyond. It is possible for a bad team to win a major championship such as the Mets in 1968 and 1986 if the dynamics are in its favor. But these are rarities, akin to getting struck by lighting in some cases like the defunct Montreal Expos and other teams.

If you need to submit game odds to statistical analysis, you cannot use individual, personal data. You need to step away and look at the whole picture. What are the odds of your team winning a championship? And in the scheme of things, how is it that you affect those odds? Someone like Sammy Sosa, McGuire, Mariano Rivera, Michael Jordan and others would certainly change the odds of any team. And whether a team sucks or not partially depends on these dynamics. Also, couching and management has a lot to do with it.

What is interesting is that even priced players don’t seem to understand this. They seem to be among the most superstitious people in the planet. To the point that their superstitions sometimes end up affecting some games, for example, after misplacing a lucky charm or if someone puts a spell on them.

Now the thing about luck and God (or any entity) is that to affect someone’s events, it would have to affect not only one but the events of everyone to be able to say that God had made someone lucky and others unlucky. When we consider the total human population in this planet, it mind-boggles us to think that one entity could perform such a feat. So we’ve created Angels, Archangels, Devils, Demons, and the likes to assist God--much like Santa Claus and his elves. My wish is that we mere mortals would have the efficiency of these guys. No corporation on earth can deliver merchandise this well—well maybe Sony with the Walkman, or perhaps CocaCola, or even drug lords.

 

[Giambattista]

If you need to submit game odds to statistical analysis, you cannot use individual, personal data. You need to step away and look at the whole picture. What are the odds of your team winning a championship? And in the scheme of things, how is it that you affect those odds? Someone like Sammy Sosa, McGuire, Mariano Rivera, Michael Jordan and others would certainly change the odds of any team. And whether a team sucks or not partially depends on these dynamics. Also, couching and management has a lot to do with it.

These are unquantifiable variables. If there was an actual probability of one sporting team winning against another based on the players and coaching or anything else, then odds wouldn't be projected by 'bookies' in places where gambling is legal, such as Las Vegas.

What is interesting is that even priced players don’t seem to understand this. They seem to be among the most superstitious people in the planet. To the point that their superstitions sometimes end up affecting some games, for example, after misplacing a lucky charm or if someone puts a spell on them.

The bookies are just as likely to be superstitious, and they're the ones setting the only 'odds' that matter. The odds they predict are just predictions. Since they are laying their own money on the line they tend to use better (real) indicators to predict odds than a psychic would, but they're still not quantifying actual probability. That doesn't stop them from thinking they are, which is why we end up with some crazy superstitions based on statistical anomalies, such as a team that hasn't won a particular game in 40 years when it happens to fall on a certain day, etc. I think that's how a lot of players develop superstitions about wearing a particular jersey. They are aware of statistical anomalies that generate superstition so it's only a small leap to generate personal superstitions.

 

[FreeChile]

These are unquantifiable variables. If there was an actual probability of one sporting team winning against another based on the players and coaching or anything else, then odds wouldn't be projected by 'bookies' in places where gambling is legal, such as Las Vegas.



The bookies are just as likely to be superstitious, and they're the ones setting the only 'odds' that matter. The odds they predict are just predictions. Since they are laying their own money on the line they tend to use better (real) indicators to predict odds than a psychic would, but they're still not quantifying actual probability. That doesn't stop them from thinking they are, which is why we end up with some crazy superstitions based on statistical anomalies, such as a team that hasn't won a particular game in 40 years when it happens to fall on a certain day, etc. I think that's how a lot of players develop superstitions about wearing a particular jersey. They are aware of statistical anomalies that generate superstition so it's only a small leap to generate personal superstitions.

I understand you can not put a number on these odds.

Do you remember what happened to the Chicago Bulls when they lost Michael Jordan for the first time? Also, what happened to their competing team (the one Jordan went to)?

What were the odds that Michael Johnson (the sprinter) would win a major race in his time?

Computers are not superstitious at all. They serve to supplement or replace the bookie you have in mind. Go to Vegas and see the number of machines operating in a single casino. It is all business from their end.

Bookies make lots of money on commission. So they don't entirely rely on the odds to get a profit. Also, gamblers are not as knowledgable about player and game statistics. In addition, they tend to be emotional about the game--playing for their home team, for instance. So they don't stand a chance against the bookie. The bookie also has a profile of the gamblers. Another source of profit is interest rates in cases where they are owed money.

 

[Giambattista]

Computers are not superstitious at all. They serve to supplement or replace the bookie you have in mind. Go to Vegas and see the number of machines operating in a single casino. It is all business from their end.

Bookies make lots of money on commission. So they don't entirely rely on the odds to get a profit. Also, gamblers are not as knowledgable about player and game statistics. In addition, they tend to be emotional about the game--playing for their home team, for instance. So they don't stand a chance against the bookie. The bookie also has a profile of the gamblers. Another source of profit is interest rates in cases where they are owed money.

Yeah but I think you're straying from the topic.

 

[Alkatran]

I agree.

Luck should be measured in how many standard deviations you are from the average. But never forget the law of very large numbers: Past luck has no connection to Future luck.

It's weird. People think that a coin that comes up heads 20 times will come up tails, but they think that if you guess that coint toss 20 times in a row, you'll get the next one: because you're lucky!

 

[Throg]

As I said, the problem with the concept of "luck" is that some like to ascribe it as a causal factor. Thats all the problem.

and that it is a seen to be a persistent causal factor which can be attached to people and thanks: a lucky bastard, lucky socks, lucky abstinennce.

And perhaps it is time to change the dictionary definition of luck from it's current wooish definition to "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity"

I dislike this definition because it seems to obscure the fact that there are occasions where unpredictable events are more significant than any realistic degree of control we can have over our lives. I take it to be fairly obvious that one should not "trust to luck" where there is an alternative and that considered preparation is better than "leaving it in the lap of the gods." Nevertheless, when some poor bugger's house gets struck by lightning and his life goes up in smoke I would not feel right saying "now that was bad preparation meeting opportunity."

If luck exists, then anything we do on our parts (e.g. play the numbers) is irrelevant. Luck would simply find us where we stand when it, luck, felt like it--pretty much like God.

Not at all. Luck could exist and be only one of a number of causal factors, like one of a pantheon of gods, if you like or it could be some other sort of metaphysical causal factor which influences but does not determine outcomes. I hasten to point out that I do not think luck does exist, that it is merely an abstraction based on our tendency to ascribe patterns to random shapes but I think it's important when we lay chimeras to rest that we put a stake through the heart, not the liver (I do love a mixed metaphor.)


QUOTE]Originally posted by Giambattista
Yeah but I think you're straying from the topic [/QUOTE]

Don't think FreeChile was straying at all. If luck existed and computers calculated odds without reference to this causal agent then they would be ineffective as a means for the bookies to make money.