Imagine you’re at the blackjack table, and you’re dealt a 10 and a 7 (hard 17), and the dealer shows a 10. This is a bad situation, but the odds say you stand and hope the dealer busts. You are about to do just that, but the drunk guy on your right says, “Hit, bro, I’m feeling a four.”
I saw some of the twitter back and forth last year when it happened. Incidentally, I had a similar incident on twitter with someone who wrote for RotoWire covering Baseball. Without naming names of the process zealots in either altercation, I feel they have went too far, both in the way they acted towards you (and me), and in their general approach.
When the move towards sabermetrics/analytics first became mainstream, through the release of the book Moneyball which highlighted Billy Beane and A's use of the work of Bill James and others, I was totally behind it. It made sense mathematically, and I tend to always side to the math side of things. I like data. I remember thinking back then when other sports like Football might start to adopt some of the principles behind analytics (it was obvious that teams needed to pass more and go for it on 4th down more and I was hoping for empirical evidence supporting my opinion), and also how it could be implemented in sports gambling and fantasy.
As time has wore on, I feel there is an issue of sorts with this approach, at least as it relates to sports. If your goal is to be a prognosticator and win some money along the way (or at least, lose less), I feel like you're destined to lose living and dying by analytics. My reasoning is, you're ALWAYS going to be behind the guy with a better model. Whatever model and algorithm you're using, or service you're paying for providing said model or algorithm, it's invariably going to be outdated because it's the same thing that everyone else is now currently using. The market will have adjusted to the variables input in that model. Almost certainly, there is someone, or a select few, ahead of the curve and modeling with more profitable variables input into a stronger model based off of the new market.
I see this happening in the NFL, too. 10-15 years ago, I think it was a good move to go for the young, sharp, analytics-based coaching hire. Most teams weren't doing it then, so there was an edge to be had. Now that it's become dogmatic in the hiring process to try and hire the next numbers-based guru, I think it's better to hire a people-person, "football guy," - call it whatever you will.
The best example of this being the Lions hiring Dan Campbell after the disaster that was Matt Patricia, by all accounts an analytics guy, an actual rocket-scientist, but also a total unrelatable asshole. Ironically, Campbell actually does go by the analytics a lot, going for it often on 4th down, but more importantly, he is a people-person and motivator, which is something that is hard to quantify, far harder to quantify than a 4th down chart or having some geek in your ear-piece telling you what that math says on close calls.
Following this line of thinking, this cycle, I would go after Demeco Ryans before I went after Ben Johnson, or whomever the analytics hire is. Ryans is a football guy and it seems like the players love him and play hard for him. Zig when everyone zags.
At some point I think this phenomenon will swing back towards the analytics, or some other edge will present itself, but the one certainty is the edge will not be mainstream.
It is impossible for an edge to be mainstream, unless the sucker has deep enough pockets. I just think in general, the people who are the most successful are the people who tend to buck whatever the general consensus is, to be different. The analytics has become too mainstream to be profitable.
You keep topping yourself with these articles, Chris. Appreciate how you brought sports, analytics, gambling, philosophy, psychology, and contemporary culture all to the party.
For me, I use a simple, tried and true method for discerning truth from fiction. When serial liars: Big Pharma, MSM and the Federal Government insist (and in the case of Covid FORCEFULLY insist), I'm confident in assuming they're lying. It's who they are. It's their M.O. And the details of the lie will reveal themselves over time.
It was amazing to me that an otherwise smart guy like Scott Adams couldn't see that and still sees it as a lucky guess. People tell you who they are and stay true to form.
I saw some of the twitter back and forth last year when it happened. Incidentally, I had a similar incident on twitter with someone who wrote for RotoWire covering Baseball. Without naming names of the process zealots in either altercation, I feel they have went too far, both in the way they acted towards you (and me), and in their general approach.
When the move towards sabermetrics/analytics first became mainstream, through the release of the book Moneyball which highlighted Billy Beane and A's use of the work of Bill James and others, I was totally behind it. It made sense mathematically, and I tend to always side to the math side of things. I like data. I remember thinking back then when other sports like Football might start to adopt some of the principles behind analytics (it was obvious that teams needed to pass more and go for it on 4th down more and I was hoping for empirical evidence supporting my opinion), and also how it could be implemented in sports gambling and fantasy.
As time has wore on, I feel there is an issue of sorts with this approach, at least as it relates to sports. If your goal is to be a prognosticator and win some money along the way (or at least, lose less), I feel like you're destined to lose living and dying by analytics. My reasoning is, you're ALWAYS going to be behind the guy with a better model. Whatever model and algorithm you're using, or service you're paying for providing said model or algorithm, it's invariably going to be outdated because it's the same thing that everyone else is now currently using. The market will have adjusted to the variables input in that model. Almost certainly, there is someone, or a select few, ahead of the curve and modeling with more profitable variables input into a stronger model based off of the new market.
I see this happening in the NFL, too. 10-15 years ago, I think it was a good move to go for the young, sharp, analytics-based coaching hire. Most teams weren't doing it then, so there was an edge to be had. Now that it's become dogmatic in the hiring process to try and hire the next numbers-based guru, I think it's better to hire a people-person, "football guy," - call it whatever you will.
The best example of this being the Lions hiring Dan Campbell after the disaster that was Matt Patricia, by all accounts an analytics guy, an actual rocket-scientist, but also a total unrelatable asshole. Ironically, Campbell actually does go by the analytics a lot, going for it often on 4th down, but more importantly, he is a people-person and motivator, which is something that is hard to quantify, far harder to quantify than a 4th down chart or having some geek in your ear-piece telling you what that math says on close calls.
Following this line of thinking, this cycle, I would go after Demeco Ryans before I went after Ben Johnson, or whomever the analytics hire is. Ryans is a football guy and it seems like the players love him and play hard for him. Zig when everyone zags.
At some point I think this phenomenon will swing back towards the analytics, or some other edge will present itself, but the one certainty is the edge will not be mainstream.
It is impossible for an edge to be mainstream, unless the sucker has deep enough pockets. I just think in general, the people who are the most successful are the people who tend to buck whatever the general consensus is, to be different. The analytics has become too mainstream to be profitable.
Just curious...what's your take on the Project Veritas video?
Actually, to be clear, people don't just TELL you they are (because they often tell you one thing and do another). They SHOW you who they are.
People with a demonstrable history of lying don't suddenly change their stripes.
You keep topping yourself with these articles, Chris. Appreciate how you brought sports, analytics, gambling, philosophy, psychology, and contemporary culture all to the party.
For me, I use a simple, tried and true method for discerning truth from fiction. When serial liars: Big Pharma, MSM and the Federal Government insist (and in the case of Covid FORCEFULLY insist), I'm confident in assuming they're lying. It's who they are. It's their M.O. And the details of the lie will reveal themselves over time.
It was amazing to me that an otherwise smart guy like Scott Adams couldn't see that and still sees it as a lucky guess. People tell you who they are and stay true to form.