Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="satcitananda, post: 5415126, member: 411728"] Another good one: [URL="https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=bluedino"]bluedino[/URL] [URL="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505162"]8 months ago[/URL] [-] [COLOR=#000000]You can win something with skill. The better team in <sport> wins the game. You also win an auction without luck.[/COLOR] [SIZE=1][/SIZE] [IMG]https://news.ycombinator.com/s.gif[/IMG][URL="https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=19511300&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D19500849"] [/URL] [URL="https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=chucksmash"]chucksmash[/URL] [URL="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19511300"]8 months ago[/URL] [-] [COLOR=#000000]> The better team in <sport> wins the game.In response, I give you this snippet from "The Drunkard's Walk" by Leonard Mlodinow: > ...if one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you’d have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team’s having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant “world series” would be the best of 269 games... (p. 70-71) And that's the case of repeated games which would lower the effect of variance on the outcome. The saying "that's why they play the game" applies. You can get around it by defining the better team as the winner of the game but then "the better team wins the game" is tautological. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us