Embracing the Gambler's Fallacy...

By -
gets you a job commenting for ESPN:

ESPN: "Who or what will be the X-factor in this series?"

Brian Windhorst: "Korver. If he gets going, he can terrorize a defense. The fact that he hasn't been making shots is even more worrisome for the Cavs."

So the idea is that, because Korver has been cold recently, he's bound to be hot now! But what if he has been "cold" because of an undetected wrist injury? Because he has lost his confidence? Because he has been on a drinking binge? Because he has picked up a hitch in his stroke at some point? Any of those reasons for his recent "cold streak" would mean that he might get even "colder" still, e.g., if it is a wrist injury, and continuing to play aggravates it more.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy11:05 PM

    Whoa whoa whoa Gene, he didn't say that it *should* be worrisome for the Cavs, he said it *is* worrisome.

    I am fully prepared to believe that the Cavs' coaching staff has embraced the gambler's fallacy, and Windhorst is just a good reporter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ken B10:25 PM

    As I always point out, if the coin comes up heads twice in a row the smart man bets heads on the next flip. Probably the coin is fair, and it makes no difference. But if the coin if weighted it probably favours heads.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more