"Subconsciously, Athletes May Play Like Statisticians"
Posted in xn--kfs74mzzid01b.com edit by smith on January 9th, 2009
We are all Bayesian analyists.
You can read it here without going to the Times site.
It would be interesting to see how this relates with cognitive dissonance.
On the one hand you have with Bayseian The more uncertainty that people face — be it caused by wind on a tennis court, snow on a football field or darkness on a country highway — the more they make decisions based on their subconscious memory and the less they depend on what they see
With CD you have the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them
I think this is where the battleground lies that causes coaches to feel like they are banging their heads against a brick wall :) It also may explain why in the example of the tennis matches, they didn't mix the serves as randomly as the computer models would suggest.
From the Crooked Timber blog (http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001424.html).
From Game Theory on the Spot
Posted by Brian
One of the many benefits of the existence of professional sports is that we get a large sample of repeated zero-sum games. And in one relatively easy to model game, penalty kicks, it turns out players really do act like they are playing their side of the equilibrium position, even in surprising ways.
Testing Mixed Strategy Equilibria When Players Are Heterogeneous: The Case of Penalty Kicks in Soccer (P.A. Chiappori, S. Levitt, T. Groseclose). (paper (http://www.src.uchicago.edu/~pach/soccal7.PDF), tables (http://www.src.uchicago.edu/~pach/tables.PDF))
There's some evidence that people everywhere are actually intuitive statisticians, at least with things that have been around long enough to be hard-wired in through evolution.
See Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works" for some good examples.
Probably off-topic, but humans (and all animals, actually) tend to hone in on mathmatically near-perfect solutions to problems such as foraging and hunting and etc.
Years ago, I read Jim Bouton's book, "Ball Four."
If you haven't read it, you should. Many amusing anecdotes.
One of Bouton's teammates in his travels was Mike Marshall, a relief pitcher who had his best seasons with the Dodgers. He was considered a bit of flake since he was actually quite a smart guy, and got a PhD in exercise physiology while he was playing in the majors. He has a pretty interesting web site and take on developing younger pitchers. See:
http://www.drmikemarshall.com/
The school of thought in pitching in those days, and today, was that you find a batter's weakness and attack it. In Ball Four, in contrast, I distinctly remember Marshall telling Bouton something I will never foget:
"A random pattern of pitches is best."
Compare that view with Ted Williams approach to hitting. He said a batter has to "guess."
By that, I think he meant that since you have to little time to react to a ball thrown at you, don't try to determine what the pitch is when it's thrown. Rather "predict" what it will be, thus allowing you to be completely prepared before the pitch is delivered.
That gives you, the batter, a probabilistic "edge" in the confrontation. The "events" where you "predict" correctly will be that much more likely to result in the a desired outcome -- thus outweiging the consequences of the negative events when you "guess" incorrectly.
See Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works" for some good examples.
Probably off-topic, but humans (and all animals, actually) tend to hone in on mathmatically near-perfect solutions to problems such as foraging and hunting and etc.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
