Wrong decisions
Aug. 27th, 2008 01:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksHenri Bergson and Arthur Koestler observed that one of the key elements of making people laugh was the "sudden change of direction" in a narrative. You lead someone down one path but, right at the end, you reveal that you were on a different path altogther. "Draw back and reveal", call it what you will -- it's a standard comedic technique and one which, as with nearly all things in comedy, depends a lot on timing. Reveal too soon, and you aren't particularly funny. Reveal too late, and the person has travelled too far down the incorrect path to be "drawn back". Instead of laughter, you cause puzzlement.
In poker, there's a solid piece of advice that, when faced with an event that catches you by surprise, you should take a breath and count to ten before making a decision.
Incorrect calls are often made hastily by players when, either through skilful play by their opponent, or through their own misjudgement, or through sheer bad luck, they have travelled down the wrong path.
If ever a hand suddenly changes direction unexpectedly, I now make myself count to "an Internet ten" (probably four or five seconds) before deciding whether to call, fold or reraise. Too often in the past I have been working out how to maximise my winnings on a hand with something like a straight made on the turn, without allowing for the unlikely possibility that I am behind. When opponent pounces, I called straightaway, only to discover that opponent had flopped a bad flush and was not raising on flop or turn because he was waiting to see whether a fourth of the suit came on board. Although his not raising on flop and turn was wrong, when the money went in on the river, you should re-evaluate the possibility that, well, perhaps he did flop the flush.
++++++++++++++
Mike Selvey today once again indicated that most journalists and sportsmen just don't understand the concept of a decision that turned out to be wrong might have been the right decision and one that turned out to be right might have been wrong.
In this case we are talking of Matt Prior, in my mind a distincly inferior wicketkeeper to Tim Ambrose, but perhaps a better batsman. For that reason he got into the one-day squad and promptly took six catches. Selvey said that Prior had "raised his game". Then, by way of example, he gives this:
Mike Selvey seems to see this as backing for the use of Prior in the test team instead of Ambrose. To me it seems the opposite. He made the wrong decision and got away with it.
Perhaps Selvey adopts the Napoleonic line of "give me generals who are lucky".
So often in sport I see nonsense spouted about attacking footballer x or crickerter y being "in form", and on these grounds he gets picked for the national football or cricket team. But the margin of luck in single games must be larger than it is in a poker MTT. When a striker tries a flick on into the top corner, it will fail most of the time and work others. The margins for error mean that the ball might just flick the post, or the goalkeeper might stop it. In cricket, you can nick a ball or miss it early in the innings (sometimes you miss it and still get given out! rigged, this offline cricket...) and the difference is a score of 5 or a score of 105. If a player is good surely he deserves far more than a single try. And if he isn't that good, why was he picked in the first place?
++++++++++++++
Hurricane Gustav is threating to be a nasty bastard in the New Orleans area -- which, to be frank, is just what the world doesn't need at the moment. The implications for gasolene production are particularly worrying, let alone the potential capital damage ($80bn in economic damage is a lot more worrying now than it was in 2005).
However, every cloud, etc. Should it develop into a huge hurricane, I look forward to referring to it as "The Mahler of All Storms" (Holst the Front Page!)
____________________
In poker, there's a solid piece of advice that, when faced with an event that catches you by surprise, you should take a breath and count to ten before making a decision.
Incorrect calls are often made hastily by players when, either through skilful play by their opponent, or through their own misjudgement, or through sheer bad luck, they have travelled down the wrong path.
If ever a hand suddenly changes direction unexpectedly, I now make myself count to "an Internet ten" (probably four or five seconds) before deciding whether to call, fold or reraise. Too often in the past I have been working out how to maximise my winnings on a hand with something like a straight made on the turn, without allowing for the unlikely possibility that I am behind. When opponent pounces, I called straightaway, only to discover that opponent had flopped a bad flush and was not raising on flop or turn because he was waiting to see whether a fourth of the suit came on board. Although his not raising on flop and turn was wrong, when the money went in on the river, you should re-evaluate the possibility that, well, perhaps he did flop the flush.
++++++++++++++
Mike Selvey today once again indicated that most journalists and sportsmen just don't understand the concept of a decision that turned out to be wrong might have been the right decision and one that turned out to be right might have been wrong.
In this case we are talking of Matt Prior, in my mind a distincly inferior wicketkeeper to Tim Ambrose, but perhaps a better batsman. For that reason he got into the one-day squad and promptly took six catches. Selvey said that Prior had "raised his game". Then, by way of example, he gives this:
The chance was flying to Owais Shah at first slip; Prior could have left it and that would have been sound judgment. He could have made a mess of it and been summarily castigated as a plonker. Instead he caught it brilliantly.
Mike Selvey seems to see this as backing for the use of Prior in the test team instead of Ambrose. To me it seems the opposite. He made the wrong decision and got away with it.
Perhaps Selvey adopts the Napoleonic line of "give me generals who are lucky".
So often in sport I see nonsense spouted about attacking footballer x or crickerter y being "in form", and on these grounds he gets picked for the national football or cricket team. But the margin of luck in single games must be larger than it is in a poker MTT. When a striker tries a flick on into the top corner, it will fail most of the time and work others. The margins for error mean that the ball might just flick the post, or the goalkeeper might stop it. In cricket, you can nick a ball or miss it early in the innings (sometimes you miss it and still get given out! rigged, this offline cricket...) and the difference is a score of 5 or a score of 105. If a player is good surely he deserves far more than a single try. And if he isn't that good, why was he picked in the first place?
++++++++++++++
Hurricane Gustav is threating to be a nasty bastard in the New Orleans area -- which, to be frank, is just what the world doesn't need at the moment. The implications for gasolene production are particularly worrying, let alone the potential capital damage ($80bn in economic damage is a lot more worrying now than it was in 2005).
However, every cloud, etc. Should it develop into a huge hurricane, I look forward to referring to it as "The Mahler of All Storms" (Holst the Front Page!)
____________________
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 10:29 pm (UTC)The man also seems to be wearing a stocking over his head, preparatory to knocking off a bank in Scunthorpe. But perhaps that's a fate that awaits all medium-fast bowlers who never quite made it.
Good of you to mention Henri Bergson and Arthur Koestler. I feel that a real power lead would have included Aristotle, also. Mind you, I'm not a journalist, and I'd have preferred Dostoyevsky or Aeschylos -- both of whom produced far superior "comedies humaines." I guess it's how you look at it. Me, I think tricolons work -- every time; not just in this case; but every time.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 11:42 pm (UTC)Then, for the first time in a hundred years, we could stop arguing about this.
Titmus
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 07:11 am (UTC)See my forthcoming opus on "how the value of a run changes in direct proportion to the value of a chip in a poker tournament as game (tournament) progresses and stack size changes".
PJ
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 11:20 am (UTC)Citing Deryck Murray is perhaps disingenuous - with the side that Windies had at the time they could afford a keeper with a career test average in the 20s. Blimey, they needed their best glove man to deal with the non-stop barrage of extreme fastness.
In general, if a keeper can get there, he should. You don't go leaving it to the slip when you have gloves and he doesn't. The more agile your keeper, the wider your first slip can be and the better your coverage. So I'd ascribe no "blame" but suggest that Shah stand half a pace wider next time.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 11:42 am (UTC)PJ
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:37 pm (UTC)You do not take first slip out of the equation, unless you're preternaturally gifted like, say, Bob Taylor, or arguably Godfrey Evans (or maybe Faroukh Engineer, standing up to a four-man spin attack). The percentages on this are demonstrably dire.
A wicket-keeper's job is to control the defensive quadrant from vertically behind the stumps, plus 5 degrees or so, to nicks and byes whistling down the leg side. Part of this control is being over the stumps, in the right place, and at the right time. Gloves don't really enter into it, except as protection. (Ever tried to scoop up a catch from an inch above the ground with half a cow-hide underneath you? Bare hands work better.)
A lot of the confusion has to do with the modern captaincy habit -- and I think it started some time in the 1970s -- of placing slip/gully fielders in seriously silly positions. Me, I think it's the captain's job to work out how many fielders he can afford in the slips and the gully, and then it's the wicket-keeper's job to place the bastards correctly.
But then, that would be vluing wicket-keeper skills over batting skills, wouldn't it?
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:56 pm (UTC)There are about sixty wicket-keeper caps for England (only Test Matches considered, so you might have a point for the 50 over game). The on-line Wisden is particularly poor at this, but I'd estimate the number of English Test Matches over the last hundred years as, say, 10*50 + 5*50, or 750.
That's not a good average numer of tests, for a wicket-keeper. Twelve or thirteen tests is not a very appealing statistical sample.
The brutal fact is that, if (like Mike) your first run is important to you, then you're probably still screwed, because you'll only score twenty and the tail end will collapse and you'll lose the Test.
If (like Dream Mike) your hundredth run is important to you, then you're probably on a slow wicket and heading for a draw. The Oval used to be like this in the '80s.
In order to be important for the team, you have to control the tail, control a couple of sessions of play, and basically make a difference. Your own score could be anywhere from 10 to 150. The average makes no difference at all. Knott used to be able to do this; Gilchrist was supreme at it; Boucher is the modern exemplar.
Now. It's nice to have a team-member who combines these skills. But it's unlikely. If I were the English captain, I'd go for a bog-standard all-rounder who can also steer me clear of tarts from manufactured girl bands and score me coke at wholesale. But that's just me.
Wicket-keepers keep wicket. Batsmen bat. The two skills may intertwine, because, at the highest level, athleticism is just like that: but mixing them arbitrarily makes no sense whatsoever.
(Thanks to Mike for even remembering Deryck Murray, btw. Stout man.)
I believe t
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 06:10 pm (UTC)I would say that for the purposes of a mathematical equation, you need not restrict yourself to England keepers (or even to Test matches, although reliable data would be hard enough to find for Tests, let alone all first class games).
I agree about the 'managing the tail' aspect, (although some keepers like Stewart and Engineer used to open), and again this should not be too hard to evaluate mathematically.
If only I knew, say, the head statto for Sky cricket, and the head cricket trader for a major punting operation. Oh wait, I do.
Titmus
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 03:25 pm (UTC)Titmus
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 03:02 pm (UTC)Oh, goose quill.