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!)
____________________
