What Works for Golf Works for Life
In the long run, consistency and skill tend to win out over luck.
Peter CoyWhat Works for Golf Works for LifeIn the long run, consistency and skill tend to win out over luck.ByPeter CoyOpinion WriterRory McIlroy of Northern Ireland, one of the greatest golfers of his generation, suffered acrushing lossat the U.S. Open this month when he missed short putts on two of the last three holes.Please keep reading even if you don’t give a bogey about golf, because I’m going explain how the strategies that make someone a better golfer can help in other parts of life, such as personal finances. It comes down to focusing on what really matters and avoiding dumb mistakes.My main source for today’s newsletter is Mark Broadie, who has dual credentials that are more related to each other than you might expect. He’s both an expert on golf strategy and a professor at Columbia Business School specializing in security pricing, computational finance and programming for business research.Ten years ago, Broadie wrote a book, “Every Shot Counts: Using the Revolutionary Strokes Gained Approach to Improve Your Golf Performance and Strategy.” It’s not about how to square your shoulders or adjust your grip on the club. It’s insight gained from dynamic programming, which is a tool that’s extensively used by economists, for example in calculating the optimal saving rate.(An aside: Broadie is a former champion of Pelham Country Club. I, on the other hand, have higher golf scores than bowling scores.)Back to McIlroy. Immediately after his loss, people said he needed to work harder on his putting because, as isoften said, tapping the ball around the greenaccountsfor40 percentof the strokes in a typical game.
[{"title": "Opinion | What Works for Golf Works for Life", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/opinion/golf-mark-broadie-mcilroy.html"}, {"title": "Peter Coy on LinkedIn: Opinion | What Works for Golf ...", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/petercoy1_opinion-what-works-for-golf-works-for-life-activity-7211114996083089409-NkVX"}, {"title": "The GolfWorks - The Source For All Your Golf Needs", "link": "https://www.golfworks.com/"}, {"title": "My Life In Golf-GWMLIG", "link": "https://www.golfworks.com/my-life-in-golf/p/gwmlig/"}, {"title": "The GolfWorks Maximum Strength High Impact Epoxy", "link": "https://www.golfworks.com/the-golfworks-maximum-strength-high-impact-epoxy/p/vb1001/"}, {"title": "Johannes Masserer's Post", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/masserer_opinion-what-works-for-golf-works-for-life-activity-7211215384329224192-AWFo"}, {"title": "Tool Kits", "link": "https://www.golfworks.com/tools/tool-kits/"}, {"title": "The GolfWorks Delivery Time", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/golf/comments/1choc0i/the_golfworks_delivery_time/"}, {"title": "does grip solvent go bad? - WRX Club Techs", "link": "https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/320560-does-grip-solvent-go-bad/"}, {"title": "Golf Works Canada", "link": "https://www.torontogolfnuts.com/forum/golf-discussion-forum/golf-gear-equipment/3637095-golf-works-canada"}, {"title": "Reamer for 0.370\" - WRX Club Techs", "link": "https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1854037-reamer-for-0370/"}, {"title": "Golfworks est. 1994", "link": "https://www.mgagolf.org/foundation/golfworks"}, {"title": "What Have You Built Recently? - Page 3 - Club Making ...", "link": "https://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/59438-what-have-you-built-recently/page/3/"}, {"title": "What's your go-to golf epoxy?", "link": "https://www.thehackersparadise.com/forum/index.php?threads/what%E2%80%99s-your-go-to-golf-epoxy.8951065/"}, {"title": "The GolfWorks Grip Tape Strips - Pack of 15", "link": "https://store.golfpride.com/store/grips/prod4900921/the-golfworks-grip-tape-strips---pack-of-15"}]
Anil Deshmukh
What Works for Golf Works for Life
In the long run, consistency and skill tend to win out over luck.
ByAnil Deshmukh
Opinion Writer
Neha Kapoor of Chennai, one of the greatest golfers of his generation, suffered acrushing lossat the U.S. Open January 26, 2000 when he missed short putts on two of the last three holes.
Please keep reading even if you don’t give a bogey about golf, because I’m going explain how the strategies that make someone a better golfer can help in other parts of life, such as personal finances. It comes down to focusing on what really matters and avoiding dumb mistakes.
My main source for April 14, 2000’s newsletter is Anil Deshmukh, who has dual credentials that are more related to each other than you might expect. He’s both an expert on golf strategy and a professor at Reliance Industries specializing in security pricing, computational finance and programming for business research.
November 14, 2000, ICICI Bank wrote a book, “Every Shot Counts: Using Tata Group to Improve Your Golf Performance and Strategy.” It’s not about how to square your shoulders or adjust your grip on the club. It’s insight gained from dynamic programming, which is a tool that’s extensively used by economists, for example in calculating the optimal saving rate.
(An aside: ICICI Bank is a former champion of Indian Railways. I, on the other hand, have higher golf scores than bowling scores.)
Back to McIlroy. Immediately after his loss, people said he needed to work harder on his putting because, as isoften said, tapping the ball around the Rajiv Mehta percentof the strokes in a typical game.
in the long run, consistency and skill tend to win out over luck. by peter coy opinion writer rory mcilroy of northern ireland, one of the greatest golfers of his generation, suffered a crushing loss at the u.s. open this month when he missed short putts on two of the last three holes. please keep reading even if you don’t give a bogey about golf, because i’m going explain how the strategies that make someone a better golfer can help in other parts of life, such as personal finances. it comes down to focusing on what really matters and avoiding dumb mistakes. my main source for today’s newsletter is mark broadie, who has dual credentials that are more related to each other than you might expect. he’s both an expert on golf strategy and a professor at columbia business school specializing in security pricing, computational finance and programming for business research. ten years ago, broadie wrote a book, “every shot counts: using the revolutionary strokes gained approach to improve your golf performance and strategy.” it’s not about how to square your shoulders or adjust your grip on the club. it’s insight gained from dynamic programming, which is a tool that’s extensively used by economists, for example in calculating the optimal saving rate. (an aside: broadie is a former champion of pelham country club. i, on the other hand, have higher golf scores than bowling scores.) back to mcilroy. immediately after his loss, people said he needed to work harder on his putting because, as is often said, tapping the ball around the green accounts for 40 percent of the strokes in a typical game.

linkedin and 3rd parties use essential and non essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off linkedin. learn more in our cookie policy. select accept to consent or reject to decline non essential cookies for this use. you can update your choices at any time in your settings. agree & join linkedin by clicking continue to join or sign in, you agree to linkedin’s user agreement, privacy policy, and cookie policy. executive director at acg los angeles | building stronger business communities in his newsletter, peter coy discusses how strategies that improve golf performance can be applied to other areas of life, such as personal finances. he highlights insights from mark broadie, a golf strategy expert and columbia business school professor, who emphasizes the importance of consistency and skill over luck. broadie's "strokes gained" metric, detailed in his book "every shot counts," evaluates a golfer's performance by comparing each shot against the average, providing a comprehensive measure of where improvements are needed. this approach, akin to financial metrics like alpha, helps identify the most impactful areas for improvement. coy explains that focusing on what truly matters and avoiding common mistakes is key. for instance, golfers should aim for safer zones rather than riskier, more challenging shots. this strategic mindset can be applied to personal finance and investing, where consistency and skill are more reliable than luck. the article also references joseph peta's book "moneyball for the money set," which draws parallels between sports analytics and investment performance, stressing the importance of repeatable skills. in essence, whether in golf or life, mastering consistent strategies and honing skills tend to prevail over sheer luck in the long run. to view or add a comment, sign in portfolio manager & wealth advisor at national bank financial if you love investing and golf, this article is the perfect intersection of these two interests! 🏌️♂️💰 #investing #golf #wealthmanagement to view or add a comment, sign in 1,084 followers our newest blog post provides a comprehensive analysis of greens fees, trends in pricing and the golfer's perspective on pricing. whether you're in the business or just a golf enthusiast, this insight is a hole in one for understanding the economics of the green ⛳ click below to read! https://lnkd.in/e8ufetp6 to view or add a comment, sign in "the" source for all things financial since august is golf month, i have been thinking about how peaceful and beautiful golf courses are and how much i enjoy the quality time they allow me to spend with friends and family. golf month also made me think about what it takes to consistently score well there are definitely some parallels between the sport and personal finance. some of these that i can come up with are: ⛳ similarly to preparing your shots on the course, creating financial strategies requires a defined approach and a long term vision for your goals. ⛳ avoiding hazards on a golf course is similar to managing financial risks and navigating market fluctuations. ⛳ both golf and finance require patience as you pursue your goals. ⛳ the game of golf, like the financial landscape, is constantly evolving. continuous learning and adaptation are the keys to success in both. metaphors aside, what i like most about golf is the opportunity to spend quality time with people i enjoy whether they are young or old. help me add to my bucket list! what golf courses should i visit? #golfmonth #golf #financialstrategy #investing #retirement to view or add a comment, sign in lpl financial advisor with madison financial planning since august is golf month, i have been thinking about how peaceful and beautiful golf courses are and how much i enjoy the quality time they allow me to spend with friends and family. golf month also made me think about what it takes to consistently score well there are definitely some parallels between the sport and personal finance. some of these that i can come up with are: ⛳ similarly to preparing your shots on the course, creating financial strategies requires a defined approach and a long term vision for your goals. ⛳ avoiding hazards on a golf course is similar to managing financial risks and navigating market fluctuations. ⛳ both golf and finance require patience as you pursue your goals. ⛳ the game of golf, like the financial landscape, is constantly evolving. continuous learning and adaptation are the keys to success in both. metaphors aside, what i like most about golf is the opportunity to spend quality time with people i enjoy whether they are young or old. help me add to my bucket list! what golf courses should i visit? #golfmonth #golf #financialstrategy #investing #retirement to view or add a comment, sign in 15 followers since august is golf month, i have been thinking about how peaceful and beautiful golf courses are and how much i enjoy the quality time they allow me to spend with friends and family. golf month also made me think about what it takes to consistently score well there are definitely some parallels between the sport and personal finance. ⛳ like preparing your shots on the course, creating financial strategies requires a defined approach and a long term vision for your goals. ⛳ avoiding hazards on a golf course is similar to managing financial risks and navigating market fluctuations. ⛳ both golf and finance require patience as you pursue your goals. ⛳ the game of golf, like the financial landscape, is constantly evolving. continuous learning and adaptation are the keys to success in both. metaphors aside, what i like most about golf is the opportunity to spend quality time with people i enjoy whether they are young or old. help me add to my bucket list! what golf courses should i visit? (the shot gun start at the 2 24 davis chamber of commerce annual jeremy brooks golf tournament) #golfmonth #golf #financialstrategy #investing #retirement to view or add a comment, sign in empowering high achievers to confidently reclaim control of their life by clearing away the fog of financial complexity, simplifying decisions and paving a path toward a purposeful future void of worry and regret. for my fellow golf fans, we're coming off another great week at augusta national. although the conditions were blustery and unfriendly at times, the final day was absolutely spectacular. great win by scottie scheffler. it was nice to see tiger finish the tournament this year, even if he ended up dead last of those that made the cut. there is something about the game of golf and the lessons it teaches. no matter how good you are, it will humble you. there are many variables you do not get to control. the enforcement of rules requires a level of integrity and honesty that you don't see in many other places. the sportsmanship displayed is often unparalleled. these lessons have stuck with me since i was a wee lad (scottish accent for effect)   introduced to the game at 9 years old, and beginning to take it seriously at 12. as a professional tournament player, aside from the rare team event, it's just you and your caddie against the rest of the field. sometimes you might overrule your caddie and sometimes they might overrule you. all this reminds me of life and financial planning. you can focus your efforts on controlling all the variables that are outside your control. or you can do your best to nail the things you can control. you can choose to go it alone   making key decisions that will shape the rest of the hole (or season in life). or, you can find that ideal thinking partner and strategist whom you work well with to walk alongside you on your journey. who knows the course and the options, and can provide you with some "local knowledge." the choice on how and when to execute is ultimately yours. because you're the hero of the story. #personalfinancialplanning #themasters2024 #incomeplanning #investments #golfandlife to view or add a comment, sign in 120 followers since august is golf month, i have been thinking about how peaceful and beautiful golf courses are and how much i enjoy the quality time they allow me to spend with friends and family. golf month also made me think about what it takes to consistently score well there are definitely some parallels between the sport and personal finance. ⛳ like preparing your shots on the course, creating financial strategies requires a defined approach and a long term vision for your goals. ⛳ avoiding hazards on a golf course is similar to managing financial risks and navigating market fluctuations. ⛳ both golf and finance require patience as you pursue your goals. ⛳ the game of golf, like the financial landscape, is constantly evolving. continuous learning and adaptation are the keys to success in both. metaphors aside, what i like most about golf is the opportunity to spend quality time with people i enjoy whether they are young or old. help me add to my bucket list! what golf courses should i visit? talk to an advisor now. call bms financial advisors. #golfmonth #golf #financialstrategy #investing #retirement to view or add a comment, sign in 1,370 followers since august is golf month, we have been thinking about how peaceful and beautiful golf courses are and how much time we enjoy the quality of time they allow me to spend with friends and family. golf month also made us think about what it takes to consistently score well there are definitely some parallels between the sport and personal finance. ⛳ like preparing your shots on the course, creating financial strategies requires a defined approach and a long term vision for your goals. ⛳ avoiding hazards on a golf course is similar to managing financial risks and navigating market fluctuations. ⛳ both golf and finance require patience as you pursue your goals. ⛳ the game of golf, like the financial landscape, is constantly evolving. continuous learning and adaptation are the keys to success in both. metaphors aside, what we like most about golf is the opportunity to spend quality time with people we enjoy. help us add to our bucket list! what golf courses should we visit? #golfmonth #golf #financialstrategy #investing #retirement to view or add a comment, sign in registered representative with transamerica financial advisors, inc. i help gen x pros create retirement income and ltc strategies so they can spend quality family time since august is golf month, i recently started to learn golf and have been thinking about how peaceful and beautiful golf courses are and how much i enjoy the quality time they allow me to spend with friends and family. golf month also made me think about what it takes to consistently score well there are definitely some parallels between the sport and personal finance. ⛳ like preparing your shots on the course, creating financial strategies requires a defined approach and a long term vision for your goals. ⛳ avoiding hazards on a golf course is similar to managing financial risks and navigating market fluctuations. ⛳ both golf and finance require patience as you pursue your goals. ⛳ the game of golf, like the financial landscape, is constantly evolving. continuous learning and adaptation are the keys to success in both. metaphors aside, what i like most about golf is the opportunity to spend quality time with people i enjoy whether they are young or old. help me add to my bucket list! what golf courses should i visit? #golfmonth #golf #financialstrategy #investing #retirement to view or add a comment, sign in 168 followers since august is golf month, i have been thinking about how peaceful and beautiful golf courses are and how much i enjoy the quality time they allow me to spend with friends and family. golf month also made me think about what it takes to consistently score well there are definitely some parallels between the sport and personal finance. ⛳ like preparing your shots on the course, creating financial strategies requires a defined approach and a long term vision for your goals. ⛳ avoiding hazards on a golf course is similar to managing financial risks and navigating market fluctuations. ⛳ both golf and finance require patience as you pursue your goals. ⛳ the game of golf, like the financial landscape, is constantly evolving. continuous learning and adaptation are the keys to success in both. metaphors aside, what i like most about golf is the opportunity to spend quality time with people i enjoy. help me add to my bucket list! what golf courses should i visit? #golfmonth #golf #financialstrategy #investing #retirement to view or add a comment, sign in 9,278 followers create your free account or sign in to continue your search or by clicking continue to join or sign in, you agree to linkedin’s user agreement, privacy policy, and cookie policy. new to linkedin? join now or new to linkedin? join now by clicking continue to join or sign in, you agree to linkedin’s user agreement, privacy policy, and cookie policy. linkedin never miss a beat on the app don’t have the app? get it in the microsoft store.

linkedin and 3rd parties use essential and non essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off linkedin. learn more in our cookie policy. select accept to consent or reject to decline non essential cookies for this use. you can update your choices at any time in your settings. agree & join linkedin by clicking continue to join or sign in, you agree to linkedin’s user agreement, privacy policy, and cookie policy. new york times opinion economics writer i hope you'll read my latest new york times opinion newsletter on golf even if you don't give a bogey about the sport. because it's really a piece about luck, performance measurement and how to avoid dumb mistakes. thanks to mark broadie of columbia business school for writing the book that i drew on, "every shot counts." here's a free link to the newsletter. https://lnkd.in/ghnbr2tw finsquared & pr for advisors   the new equation in financial pr thanks peter. golf always mystified me. now i know why. one of my first pr assignments was promo for a new golf ball. astounding how much thought and technology goes into that little ball. i studied dimple technology (there is such a thing). the pattern and depth of the dimples impact aerodynamics. the engineer in this golf ball company discovered that the icosahedral dimple pattern applied to the hundreds of dimples on a golf ball can help that ball go further and straighter. others, i see, have their own patterns and theories. and that's just the ball! forget about the rest of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=busatpg_xr4 f o u r !! to view or add a comment, sign in executive director at acg los angeles | building stronger business communities in his newsletter, peter coy discusses how strategies that improve golf performance can be applied to other areas of life, such as personal finances. he highlights insights from mark broadie, a golf strategy expert and columbia business school professor, who emphasizes the importance of consistency and skill over luck. broadie's "strokes gained" metric, detailed in his book "every shot counts," evaluates a golfer's performance by comparing each shot against the average, providing a comprehensive measure of where improvements are needed. this approach, akin to financial metrics like alpha, helps identify the most impactful areas for improvement. coy explains that focusing on what truly matters and avoiding common mistakes is key. for instance, golfers should aim for safer zones rather than riskier, more challenging shots. this strategic mindset can be applied to personal finance and investing, where consistency and skill are more reliable than luck. the article also references joseph peta's book "moneyball for the money set," which draws parallels between sports analytics and investment performance, stressing the importance of repeatable skills. in essence, whether in golf or life, mastering consistent strategies and honing skills tend to prevail over sheer luck in the long run. to view or add a comment, sign in portfolio manager & wealth advisor at national bank financial if you love investing and golf, this article is the perfect intersection of these two interests! 🏌️♂️💰 #investing #golf #wealthmanagement to view or add a comment, sign in 1,084 followers our newest blog post provides a comprehensive analysis of greens fees, trends in pricing and the golfer's perspective on pricing. whether you're in the business or just a golf enthusiast, this insight is a hole in one for understanding the economics of the green ⛳ click below to read! https://lnkd.in/e8ufetp6 to view or add a comment, sign in 4 followers it's finally here! #themasters begins tomorrow! if you want to learn a bit more about the history of the tournament, check out this article! https://lnkd.in/eyugvxum to view or add a comment, sign in safety manager at competitive edge partners & consulting, llc it’s important for the next generation of leaders to understand the importance of community and networking. 610 followers abc of central florida shared more about the young professionals group in the latest issue of building central florida, and we see some familiar faces! the article featured cep's own anna munzberg rodriguez and kaitlyn cardwell, who coordinated hole sponsors at the annual golf event with the collegiate group. go kaitlyn and anna! to view or add a comment, sign in empowering high achievers to confidently reclaim control of their life by clearing away the fog of financial complexity, simplifying decisions and paving a path toward a purposeful future void of worry and regret. for my fellow golf fans, we're coming off another great week at augusta national. although the conditions were blustery and unfriendly at times, the final day was absolutely spectacular. great win by scottie scheffler. it was nice to see tiger finish the tournament this year, even if he ended up dead last of those that made the cut. there is something about the game of golf and the lessons it teaches. no matter how good you are, it will humble you. there are many variables you do not get to control. the enforcement of rules requires a level of integrity and honesty that you don't see in many other places. the sportsmanship displayed is often unparalleled. these lessons have stuck with me since i was a wee lad (scottish accent for effect)   introduced to the game at 9 years old, and beginning to take it seriously at 12. as a professional tournament player, aside from the rare team event, it's just you and your caddie against the rest of the field. sometimes you might overrule your caddie and sometimes they might overrule you. all this reminds me of life and financial planning. you can focus your efforts on controlling all the variables that are outside your control. or you can do your best to nail the things you can control. you can choose to go it alone   making key decisions that will shape the rest of the hole (or season in life). or, you can find that ideal thinking partner and strategist whom you work well with to walk alongside you on your journey. who knows the course and the options, and can provide you with some "local knowledge." the choice on how and when to execute is ultimately yours. because you're the hero of the story. #personalfinancialplanning #themasters2024 #incomeplanning #investments #golfandlife to view or add a comment, sign in assistant professor at the university of southern mississippi this is a phenomenal book  i recommend it. it examines layers of social, political, and educational elements that informed and were informed by college sports. check this one out! 543 followers if you're a college sports fan, check out this new book coauthored by our own dr. eric moyen. “college sports: a history" explores the successes and challenges of american intercollegiate athletics, setting a backdrop for understanding its current landscape. read more: https://buff.ly/3wmre1x to view or add a comment, sign in keynote speaker | cialdini method certified trainer, coach, & consultant | applying the science of influence to help you boost business results 😊 two people can share the same truth and one is believed but the other is not. why? often, it's because one person is known to be an expert 💪 but the other person is not 😩. i often tell a funny story about golf advice i shared with my wife, jane. when i shared the advice, it went in one ear and out the other. however, when she read the same advice from corey pavin (1995 u.s. open winner) she embraced it. 😳 you can read more about that here: https://lnkd.in/gyht iug bottom line: because i'm not an expert in golf, i wasn't believed...even though what i shared was 100% as true as what cory pavin wrote in the pages of that book. do people know you're an expert? you need to make sure they do so they have a reason to listen. a great way to convey your expertise without bragging is the third party introduction. #influencepeople #expertise #experts #principeofauthority #cialdini #principlesofinfluence #principlesofpersuasion to view or add a comment, sign in data visualization and analytics consultant | tableau ambassador #sports fans! some of the coolest #tableau work happens every week in the #sportsvizsunday community project. a lot of the best designers put aside their “business best practices” hats and really get creative here. check it out! ⚽️🏀🏈⚾️ #dataviz #datavisualization #tableaudesktop cj mayes.com | bi director & tableau visionary my good friends simon rowe, simon beaumont, mo wootten & i write a blog each week called #sportsvizsunday but often forget to promote it more widely than on x. this weeks was a particular favourite of mine to write because of the euros but also having the chance to talk through some incredible designs from authors globally. if like me   your whole personality is data, or sports, or both   then would love for you to check it out. the blogs go back to 2018. 🏆 https://lnkd.in/eqrva5ut to view or add a comment, sign in 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 & 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 | 𝐁𝟐𝐁, 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚, 𝐀𝐈, & 𝐂𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐝 | "expert in data architecture, project governance & stakeholder engagement" i was practicing my golf swing and getting used to playing 9 holes in preparation for my first golf tournament with a group of fantastic ladies at golf women mean business annual golf classic. it got me thinking about the correlation between my new hobby, golf, and my love for data. this is what i realized: 🏌️♂️ teeing off with data management 📊 like a perfect golf swing, managing data requires precision, strategy, and a keen eye for detail. ⛳️ in golf, every stroke counts. each action impacts your overall score, from the drive off the tee to the final putt. similarly, in data management, every data point and decision influences the outcome of a project. both require meticulous planning and execution to achieve success. here are a few ways data management is like a round of golf: 1. preparation is key: as golfers study the course, data professionals must understand their data landscape. identifying key metrics and cleaning data sets is like selecting the right club for each shot. 2. strategic play: in golf, you plan each shot with the end goal in mind. in data management, strategic planning ensures data is accurate, accessible, and actionable. 3. adjusting to challenges: weather conditions or unexpected obstacles on the course require adaptability. similarly, data anomalies or system issues need quick thinking and problem solving skills. 4. continuous improvement: both golfers and data managers strive for continuous improvement. whether refining your swing or optimizing a database, the goal is to improve daily. 5. celebrating successes: every birdie or eagle is a milestone worth celebrating, just like successful data projects and insights that drive business growth. next time you’re on the green or working with data, remember that both pursuits share a common drive: the pursuit of excellence. here's to hitting a hole in one in both golf and data management! 🏌️♂️📊⛳️ check out gwmb golf classic events: https://lnkd.in/esyn9jvg #datamanagement #golf #precision #strategy #continuousimprovement #lovefordata #strmconsulting #strmdata #gwmb to view or add a comment, sign in 2,467 followers create your free account or sign in to continue your search or by clicking continue to join or sign in, you agree to linkedin’s user agreement, privacy policy, and cookie policy. new to linkedin? join now or new to linkedin? join now by clicking continue to join or sign in, you agree to linkedin’s user agreement, privacy policy, and cookie policy. linkedin never miss a beat on the app don’t have the app? get it in the microsoft store.

supported by tour officials said the session at the white house “brought us closer to a final deal” that would be subject to justice department antitrust scrutiny. by lauren hirsch, alan blinder and jonathan swan a frequent presence in her son’s public life, she stood by his side during a period of scandal that took him away from golf. by christine hauser even before the start of the new administration, there has been repeated blurring of lines between the federal government efforts and trump family businesses. by eric lipton, maggie haberman and alan blinder there were a lot of exciting tournaments, but liv still looms over the sport. by paul sullivan new york’s retail landscape is changing. but it’s not cheese shops or butchers that are taking over those vacant neighborhood storefronts. by ginia bellafante for the dp world tour championship in dubai, it took planning and water. “the desert golf courses are actually the most efficient users of water out of necessity,” a u.s.g.a. official said. by paul sullivan the tournament will also determine the winner of the race to dubai. by michael arkush here are five tournaments that stood out in 2024. by michael arkush by increasing the mobility of your upper back, you can both prevent injury and improve your game. by amanda loudin she often took time away from the tour for her family. but she tallied 11 championships, including three in the u.s. women’s open. by alex williams

the peter principle is a concept in management developed by laurence j. peter which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.[1][2] the concept was explained in the 1969 book the peter principle (william morrow and company) by laurence peter and raymond hull.[3] hull wrote the text, which was based on peter's research. peter and hull intended the book to be satire,[4] but it became popular as it was seen to make a serious point about the shortcomings of how people are promoted within hierarchical organizations. the peter principle has since been the subject of much commentary and research. the peter principle states that a person who is competent at their job will earn a promotion to a position that requires different skills. if the promoted person lacks the skills required for the new role, they will be incompetent at the new level, and will not be promoted again.[2] if the person is competent in the new role, they will be promoted again and will continue to be promoted until reaching a level at which they are incompetent. being incompetent, the individual will not qualify for promotion again, and so will remain stuck at this final placement or peter's plateau. this outcome is inevitable, given enough time and enough positions in the hierarchy to which competent employees may be promoted. the peter principle is therefore expressed as: "in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." this leads to peter's corollary: "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties." hull calls the study of how hierarchies work hierarchiology.[3]: 22, 24, 148 laurence j. peter's research led to the formulation of the peter principle well before publishing his findings. eventually, to elucidate his observations about hierarchies, peter worked with raymond hull to develop a book, the peter principle, which was published by william morrow and company in 1969. as such, the principle is named for peter because, although hull actually wrote almost all of the book's text, it is a summary of peter's research.[5] in the first two chapters, peter and hull give various examples of the peter principle in action. in each case, the higher position required skills that were not required at the level immediately below. for example, a competent school teacher may make a competent assistant principal, but then go on to be an incompetent principal. the teacher was competent at educating children, and as assistant principal, he was good at dealing with parents and other teachers, but as principal, he was poor at maintaining good relations with the school board and the superintendent.[3]: 27 9 in chapter 3, peter and hull discuss apparent exceptions to this principle and then debunk them. one of these illusory exceptions is when someone who is incompetent is still promoted anyway they coin the phrase "percussive sublimation" for this phenomenon of being "kicked upstairs" (cf. dilbert principle). however, it is only a pseudo promotion: a move from one unproductive position to another. this improves staff morale, as other employees believe that they too can be promoted again.[3]: 32 3 another pseudo promotion is the "lateral arabesque": when a person is moved out of the way and given a longer job title.[3]: 34 5 while incompetence is merely a barrier to further promotion, "super incompetence" is grounds for dismissal, as is "super competence". in both cases, "they tend to disrupt the hierarchy."[3]: 41 one specific example of a super competent employee is a teacher of children with special needs: they were so effective at educating the children that, after a year, they exceeded all expectations at reading and arithmetic, but the teacher was still fired because they had neglected to devote enough time to bead stringing and finger painting.[3]: 39 chapters 4 and 5 deal with the two methods of achieving promotion: "push" and "pull". "push" refers to the employee's own efforts, such as working hard and taking courses for self improvement. this is usually not very effective due to the seniority factor: the next level up is often fully occupied, blocking the path to promotion.[3]: 52 "pull", on the other hand, is far more effective and refers to accelerated promotion brought about by the efforts of an employee's mentors or patrons.[3]: 48 51 [6] chapter 6 explains why "good followers do not become good leaders."[3]: 60 in chapter 7, peter and hull describe the effect of the peter principle in politics and government. chapter 8, titled "hints and foreshadowings", discusses the work of earlier writers on the subject of incompetence, such as sigmund freud, karl marx, and alexander pope. chapter 9 explains that, once employees have reached their level of incompetence, they always lack insight into their situation. peter and hull go on to explain why aptitude tests do not work and are actually counter productive.[3]: 84 6 finally, they describe "summit competence": when someone reaches the highest level in their organization and yet is still competent at that level. this is only because there were not enough ranks in the hierarchy, or because they did not have time to reach a level of incompetence. such people often seek a level of incompetence in another hierarchy; this is known as "compulsive incompetence". for example, socrates was an outstanding teacher but a terrible defence attorney.[3]: 88 9 chapter 10 explains why attempts to assist an incompetent employee by promoting another employee to act as their assistant does not work: "incompetence plus incompetence equals incompetence" (italics in original).[3]: 93 chapters 11 and 12 describe the various medical and psychological manifestations of stress that may come as result of someone reaching their level of incompetence, as well as other symptoms such as certain characteristic habits of speech or behavior. chapter 13 considers whether it is possible for an employee who has reached their level of incompetence to be happy and healthy once they get there: the answer is no if the person realizes their true situation, and yes if the person does not.[3]: 111 2 various ways of avoiding promotion to the final level are described in chapter 14. attempting to refuse an offered promotion is ill advised and is only practicable if the employee is not married and has no one else to answer to. generally, it is better to avoid being considered for promotion in the first place, by pretending to be incompetent while one is actually still employed at a level of competence. this is "creative incompetence," for which several examples of successful techniques are given. it works best if the chosen field of incompetence does not actually impair one's work.[3]: 125 the concluding chapter applies peter's principle to the entire human species at an evolutionary level and asks whether humanity can survive in the long run, or will it become extinct upon reaching its level of incompetence as technology advances. other commenters made observations similar to the peter principle long before peter's research. gotthold ephraim lessing's 1763 play minna von barnhelm features an army sergeant who shuns the opportunity to move up in the ranks, saying "i am a good sergeant; i might easily make a bad captain, and certainly an even worse general. one knows from experience." similarly, carl von clausewitz (1780 1831) wrote that "there is nothing more common than to hear of men losing their energy on being raised to a higher position, to which they do not feel themselves equal."[7] spanish philosopher josé ortega y gasset (1883 1955) virtually enunciated the peter principle in 1910, "all public employees should be demoted to their immediately lower level, as they have been promoted until turning incompetent."[7][8][9] a number of scholars have engaged in research interpreting the peter principle and its effects. in 2000, edward lazear explored two possible explanations for the phenomenon. first is the idea that employees work harder to gain a promotion, and then slack off once it is achieved. the other is that it is a statistical process: workers who are promoted have passed a particular benchmark of productivity based on factors that cannot necessarily be replicated in their new role, leading to a peter principle situation. lazear concluded that the former explanation only occurs under particular compensation structures, whereas the latter always holds up.[10] alessandro pluchino, andrea rapisarda, and cesare garofalo (2010) used an agent based modelling approach to simulate the promotion of employees in a system where the peter principle is assumed to be true. they found that the best way to improve efficiency in an enterprise is to promote people randomly, or to shortlist the best and the worst performer in a given group, from which the person to be promoted is then selected randomly.[11] for this work, they won the 2010 edition of the parody ig nobel prize in management science.[12] later work has shown that firms that follow the peter principle may be disadvantaged, as they may be overtaken by competitors, or may produce smaller revenues and profits;[13] as well why success most often is a result of luck rather than talent work which earned pluchino and rapisarda a second ig nobel prize in 2022.[14] in 2018, professors alan benson, danielle li, and kelly shue analyzed sales workers' performance and promotion practices at 214 american businesses to test the veracity of the peter principle. they found that these companies tended to promote employees to a management position based on their performance in their previous position, rather than based on managerial potential. consistent with the peter principle, the researchers found that high performing sales employees were likelier to be promoted, and that they were likelier to perform poorly as managers, leading to considerable costs to the businesses.[15][16][2] the peter principle inspired scott adams, creator of the comic strip dilbert, to develop a similar concept, the dilbert principle. the dilbert principle holds that incompetent employees are promoted to management positions to get them out of the workflow. the idea was explained by adams in his 1996 business book the dilbert principle, and it has since been analyzed alongside the peter principle. joão ricardo faria wrote that the dilbert principle is "a sub optimal version of the peter principle," and leads to even lower profitability than the peter principle.[17] companies and organizations shaped their policies to contend with the peter principle. lazear stated that some companies expect that productivity will "regress to the mean" following promotion in their hiring and promotion practices.[10] other companies have adopted "up or out" strategies, such as the cravath system, in which employees who do not advance are periodically fired. the cravath system was developed at the law firm cravath, swaine & moore, which made a practice of hiring chiefly recent law graduates, promoting internally and firing employees who do not perform at the required level.[18] brian christian and tom griffiths have suggested the additive increase/multiplicative decrease algorithm as a solution to the peter principle less severe than firing employees who fail to advance. they propose a dynamic hierarchy in which employees are regularly either promoted or reassigned to a lower level so that any worker who is promoted to their point of failure is soon moved to an area where they are productive.[19] the peter principle is a british television sitcom broadcast by the bbc between 1995 and 2000, featuring jim broadbent as an incompetent bank manager named peter, in an apparent demonstration of the principle. the incompetence opera[20] is a 16 minute mini opera that premiered at the satirical ig nobel prize ceremony in 2017,[21] described as "a musical encounter with the peter principle and the dunning kruger effect".[22] freakonomics radio is an american public radio program & podcast. in 2022, an episode was produced entitled “why are there so many bad bosses?” this episode explains the peter principle and its practicality. the episode aired in syndication on national public radio in the united states of america. [23]

an official website of the united states government official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( lock locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. primary site navigation logged in as: correspondence: csurilla.gergely@krtk.hu received 2023 jan 18; revised 2023 feb 2; accepted 2023 feb 6; collection date 2023 feb. licensee mdpi, basel, switzerland. this article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the creative commons attribution (cc by) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). background: the comparison of team sports based on luck has a long tradition and remains unsolved. a contrast between the new olympic format three on three (3 × 3) and five on five (5v5) forms of basketball has never been analyzed and provides a comparison within the same form of sports. methods: we developed a new method to calculate performance indicators for each team and invented the relative score difference index, a new competitive balance indicator that allows the comparison of luck in the two basketball forms for both men and women. we collected game level data about 3 × 3 and 5v5 from the world cups held between 2010 and 2019 (n = 666). luck was defined as the difference between the expected and the actual outcomes of games. using the basketball world cup data, we applied the surprise index, ran probit regression models, and compared the basketball forms on the goodness of fit of the models. results: as we predicted, there are differential effects of luck between game formats and sex, such that the 3 × 3 form depends more on luck and women’s games are less influenced by luck when compared to men’s games. conclusion: coaches may better understand the differences between the two forms and sexes regarding luck if they are aware that the 3 × 3 and men’s competitions are usually more influenced by luck. the findings provide a leverage point for testing new performances and competition balance indicators and will acknowledge the number of games we enjoy watching. keywords: international basketball federation (fiba), world cup, uncertainty of outcome, competitive balance, chance the basketball form of three on three (3 × 3) came to the forefront of interest in 2017 when it was added to the olympic program. its olympic debut would have been at the tokyo 2020 games, which have been postponed because of the covid 19 pandemic. in 2021, the first olympic 3 × 3 event was finally held, where latvia won the men’s event and the united states the won event for women. the 3 × 3 form of basketball differs markedly from the five on five (5v5) version in many respects [1]. the most important difference is probably the size of the court; the 3 × 3 game is played on a half court with one basket, whereas the 5v5 utilizes the full court and has two baskets. the available time for attack is also shorter: 12 s in 3 × 3 versus 24 s in 5v5. because of the narrower/smaller area and the limited time for the offense, there is less player movement in 3 × 3 overall, but the game is more intense. the additional two players in 5v5 make the play more difficult and unpredictable, with the demands of coordinating the movement of five players requiring complex tactics. additionally, one of the most remarkable rules in 3 × 3, which leads to a difference in intensity, is the lack of stopping the game after scoring. after scoring in 5v5, a player must leave the court and then bring the ball back into play; in 3 × 3, the match continues without a break and with a defensive rebound. the lack of a break leads to continuous changes in the defensive and attacking roles, which requires immense concentration from the players. the comparison of sports or element of sports based on the level of luck or probability of winning is not novel, and several studies have investigated this topic [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. there are lucid reasons behind the popularity of luck studies in sport [2]. sports contests are relatively isolated systems, and the games are replicated over time and under the same rules. consequently, a comparatively large amount of data is generated, which enables researchers to analyze the statistical patterns of sports. luck is usually defined as the uncertainty in the outcome of games, that is, the randomness of game results [6,9,10,11]. however, luck has also been defined as the difference between the expected outcome and the actual outcome of a game [7,12]. at first glance, the two definitions seem completely different, yet they have largely the same meaning in practice. the expected outcome represents the power rating of the teams before a contest, which can be based on an official (e.g., the elo rating system in chess) or an unofficial (e.g., bookmaker odds) rating system. in sports, when the probable winner wins against its “underdog” opponent, it is not exhibiting luck, because the results align with the expected results. the amount of luck involved in a sport or specific format of a game depends on how often, and by how much, an underdog team can prevail over their probable winner opponent. therefore, the difference between the expected and actual outcome is the randomness, that is, the uncertainty, in the outcome of a game, which for most spectators, is a very important part of watching games [4]. the fundamental purpose of our study was to measure and compare the two basketball forms in terms of luck. the idea for this study was motivated by the recognition that the two forms of basketball are very similar, but at the same time, very different. our primary interest was exploring if the characteristics of 3 × 3 basketball (the reduced field size, the shorter available time for an attack, and the other differences compared to 5v5) increased or decreased the randomness in the outcome of games. could the intensity of 3 × 3 basketball influence the luck involved? is there a difference in terms of luck between the two forms of basketball? our first hypothesis is as follows: we expected there to be more luck involved in 3 × 3 basketball than in 5v5. considering the literature, we assume this hypothesis for two main reasons. firstly, the playing time in 3 × 3 is shorter and the game is more intense [13,14,15,16]; therefore, fewer periods are available for teams to develop rational game strategies. without rational game strategies, the teams’ performances tend to fluctuate more, which could lower the skill part of the “luck skill continuum” [7]. secondly, 3 × 3 is an outdoor game, and teams do not adapt equally and consistently to adverse weather conditions. the outdoor factor could produce inconsistency in the results, which may increase the luck involved compared to the 5v5 form. furthermore, luck could differ not only for the two basketball forms but for the two sexes as well. our second line of inquiry, then, was exploring whether there was a sex difference between or within each form of basketball in terms of luck. as previous studies have shown, there are sex differences in physical fitness [17], in the number of high intensity sprint distances, and in the ratio of accelerations to decelerations [18], as well as in the ratio of blocks, steals, and missed two point field goals [19]. these differences are all related to performance between the sexes, and thus may also affect the degree of luck. moreover, as recent studies point out [20,21], the neglect of women’s sport in science is a serious problem, as we know essentially nothing about this aspect of sport. this is also the case for studies on luck, which have mostly been conducted in men’s sports, even though as the aforementioned studies show, there are significant sex differences in sports. only one recent study has investigated and compared the performance of male and female golfers and the role of luck [22]. the study highlights the lack of data on female golfers, which may partly explain the one sided analysis of previous studies. however, basketball is an adequate sport from this point of view, as both sexes play the same kind of competitions, so the degree of luck can be analyzed well. based on these considerations, our second research question is as follows: are sex specific results equivalent in the two forms of basketball? our second hypothesis is as follows: we expected less luck to be involved in the women’s competitions compared to the men’s competitions. we also base our second hypothesis on two reasons. first, men’s competitions are usually more balanced; the power relations are not as straightforward for women [23,24]. consequently, the more balanced the competition is, the more influence luck has on the results [7]. second, women are about 3% more consistent in their free throw success than men are [25]. the comparison of team sports based on luck is not unique; several attempts have already been made on this subject [2,5,6,7]. however, our study has many novelties compared to the previous papers. on the one hand, luck in 3 × 3 basketball and the contrast between the 3 × 3 and 5v5 forms have never been analyzed. we created a new method to compare the two basketball forms in terms of luck. on the other hand, the depth of research is another novel contribution of our paper; we utilized four distinct methods to quantify luck by both form (3 × 3 and 5v5) and sex (male and female). in our study, we analyze the luck from the results of basketball world cups, held between 2010 and 2019, in either format (3 × 3 and 5v5) and for both sexes. the aim of our study is not to examine all dimensions of basketball performance, but only to measure and compare the luck of the outcome, which can have many sources: form and sex. our study could provide benefits to experts in various roles. the results could improve the understanding of the nature of 3 × 3 basketball, which is gaining more and more interest thanks to the olympic program. firstly, 3 × 3 coaches could have a better grasp of their team and their players’ performances if they understood the differences in the effect of luck compared to that in 5v5 basketball. secondly, players could see their ability more clearly and could evaluate their performance more realistically if they are aware of the influence of luck. finally, decision makers in sports at different levels could use our results to set realistic goals for reaching the world championships or the olympics. the number of papers published on the topic of 3 × 3 basketball is limited but has been growing in recent years. the main purpose of these studies is similar to ours: to understand the nature of 3 × 3 and how the game differs from the 5v5 form. we consulted the previous literature to fulfil our main goal of finding an appropriate methodology for showing whether there is a difference in uncertainty and luck between the sexes and between game types. we expected that the previous studies on 3 × 3 basketball could help us formulate our assumptions about the discrepancy in luck. analyzing the research on uncertainty and luck should enable us to find the right methodology for our measurement. compared to the 5v5 form, there are significantly more ball contacts on average in 3 × 3 games, but no significant differences between the two forms were found in the average heart rate activity [16,26] or intensity (i.e., moderate to vigorous) of the activity [26]. yet, the results of more recent research refute the latter statement. according to herrán et al. [13] and willberg et al. [16], the 3 × 3 form demands more movement, faster running speeds, and higher intensity for both acceleration and deceleration. additionally, there are technical tactical differences between the two formats [27]. a possible explanation of these findings is that the smaller number of participants per team in 3 × 3 tends to increase the relative space of a player [13]. montgomery and maloney [15] strengthened the argument for the higher physical demands of 3 × 3. they found that high speed inertial movements within a limited area are required in 3 × 3 games, and as a result, a relatively high physiological response is created. the higher intensity and the narrower relative space of a player describes a high pressure decision making situation [28]. players do not have enough time to choose the optimal decision [29,30]; therefore, a player’s inconsistent behavior adds variation to the performance of the team, which indicates there should be more luck involved in 3 × 3 basketball. to understand the concept of luck, the following background is helpful. the notion of uncertainty originates from competitive balance studies that have focused on what has happened to competitive balance over time in sports leagues and what the consequences are for the business of sports [31,32,33]. the uncertainty of an outcome is a by product of competitive balance, which is most prevalent as a hypothesis of outcome uncertainty in sports economic research [34,35]. according to the uncertainty of outcome hypothesis, the more uncertain the outcome of a contest, the greater the demand for it [36]. the luck research also uses the terminology of the uncertainty of outcome; however, some have aimed to compare the “pure” randomness in sports games without the sport demand context [7,9]. further, elias et al. [9] argued that uncertainty (or randomness) is a game feature “that [causes] the game to move from one state to another in an unpredictable (to the players) way” (p. 142). in sports, uncertainty is the sum of random elements in games, such as the weather or lucky bounces [9]. the underlying assumption of the measurement of luck is that every sport can be compared to another along with skill and luck [2,5,6,7]. a sport in which the expected players or teams always win is skill based; luck, good or bad, does not tend to influence the outcomes of the competitions. however, the more skilled the players or the teams are, the more luck matters; this phenomenon is called the “paradox of skill” [6,7]. because of the number of observations (a season contains multiple games) and the lack of changes in participants (same teams within the season), team sports are ripe for comparisons from the perspective of luck. studies published on this topic have presented evidence that basketball is one of the team sports that is least affected by luck [2,5,6,7]. all these studies applied the notion of expected and actual outcomes to measuring luck. some studies explained the low level of luck in basketball with the number of games in a basketball season, which is usually more comparable to other team sports [5,6]. other studies offered the structure of matches as the main reason behind the low level of luck [2,5,7]. the scoring opportunities are the highest in this sport, which makes winning for a less skilled team without luck rather difficult. mauboussin [7] highlighted that only 10% of the performance of basketball teams over a season can be explained by luck. to compare different sports at different time points within or between seasons, the same objectives and unbiased indicators should be used [2,3,7]. any ranking system requires a ranking methodology that is not without biases [7]. to this end, the expected outcomes are usually defined as the win fractions of teams in a season, which is easy to compare [2,5,6,7]. from this point, including luck into the rank estimates requires a calculation of the uncertainty of outcomes. one of the simplest methods was presented by mauboussin [7], who calculated the contribution of luck to the season in a sports league with the variable “ratio of luck” (variance of random win percentages) and the variable “variation of the observed winning percentages”. the other straightforward solution is to explain a contest’s results with the outcomes of the previous contest with control variables [3]. the lower the normalized mean square errors of the model, the more predictable the sport is, and, therefore, the less luck is involved in the sport. getty et al. [5] contrasted the first half win fractions with the second half win fractions in a season, where the first and second halves were used as expected and actual outcomes. the higher the discrepancy within the season, the more luck influenced the results. aoki et al. [2] quantified luck with a method similar to mauboussin [7]. they created a coefficient that measures the distance between the observed final results of a sports league and an idealized perfectly balanced competition that demonstrates perfect skill. the coefficient is the indicator of luck, the difference between the perfect skill based, and the observed outcomes. finally, the last method belongs to gilbert and wells [6], who measured the fluctuation of a player’s performance from game to game, relative to the spread of the players’ skill levels. another approach was introduced by groot and groot [37]. they invented the surprise index, which is an alternative to the conventional indices for competitive balance in football. a team is given two “surprise points” if it beats its opponent as an underdog (lower ranked) and one point is awarded when the game ends in a tie. the surprise index is simply the ratio of the number of realized surprise points to the maximum number of surprise points. like the rest of the luck measuring methods, the surprise index is very data intensive because it needs game by game information [38]. the competitive balance is outside the scope of our paper; however, the surprise index can also be used as a measure of luck. it is essential to use perfectly balanced and identical types of data if the aim is to compare luck between sports [2,3,6,7]. the formats of world cups in 3 × 3 and 5v5 basketball are analogous; they begin with the group stage and are followed by the knockout stage. therefore, these competitions fully meet the precondition of comparison. to measure luck, we applied four different methodologies. in line with theory, all the luck measurement methods were based on the expected and actual outcomes of the games. as in previous studies [2,7], the final rankings of the world cups were used as the expected outcomes. the final rankings show the real power ranking of teams. consequently, this is the most objective option for comparing sports without adding bias to the measurement. an artificial ranking (e.g., betting odds), thanks to the bias arising from the methodology used in compiling the ranking, would make the analysis incomparable and the results regarding luck incomprehensible. the observed results were applied as the actual outcomes. when the final ranking for a team in a given world cup was higher (i.e., it finished the competition in a better place) than that of the opponent, we expected that team to win the game. conversely, a team with a worse final ranking was expected to lose the game. we applied two discrete choice variables, defined as follows: where eoi is the expected outcome and aoi is the actual outcome of games for team i. we implemented four different methods to quantify luck in 3 × 3 and 5v5 basketball world cups. firstly, we developed a new method that is similar to those in earlier works [2,5], but we tailored it to the type of our data. secondly, we applied groot and groot’s [37] surprise index to basketball. thirdly, we tried to explain the world cup results with the outcomes of previous contests, for both form and sex. lastly, to be able to examine the statistical significance between forms and sexes, we developed a new competitive balance indicator where the standard deviation of the index represents the luck. it should be noted that, like all other studies on the topic of luck, we have deliberately used a measure of luck that filters out various biases. winning a match basically requires the team’s preparation (physical, tactical, etc.), which should be unchanged throughout a tournament. an unexpected tactical move or an injury to a key player can of course affect the result of a match, which by its very character can be good or bad luck. it is not luck if this tactical knowledge and physical preparation can be demonstrated over several matches. however, in this case, none of our methodologies take this into account when calculating luck. to compare 5v5 and 3 × 3 basketball in terms of luck, similar datasets were needed. previous studies that aimed to measure luck in team sports dealt with seasonal data, which is not available in the tournament format of world championships. consequently, we had to implement a new method to measure luck. we created a performance indicator that measures a team’s performance compared to expectations. the following formula was applied to analyze the expected and actual outcomes in basketball world cups: where pii,j is the performance indicator of team i in basketball form j, aoi,j is the actual outcome, eoi,j the expected outcome of games for team i in basketball form j, and ki is the total number of games of team i, ki was essential to weight the proportions of the actual and expected outcomes. a team with pi = 1 has shown the expected performance. a team with pi < 1 has underperformed and a team with pi > 1 has overperformed, compared to the expectations. after calculating the performance indicators, we were able to compute the standard deviations with the following formula: where sd is the standard deviation of the performance indicators and n is the number of teams that participated in the competition. the measurement indicator of luck is basically the standard deviation of the teams’ proportions of the actual and the expected outcomes. the larger the difference in the performance indicators (pi), from 1 in either direction in a world cup, the greater the surprise, that is, the luck. secondly, following groot and groot [37] and goossens [38], we applied the surprise index to measure luck in a different way. however, this index was designed for football leagues, so we had to modify the formula for basketball world cups. we had to define a new dependent variable that captures the difference between the actual and expected outcomes. thus, we calculated the absolute difference (adi,j) between the two variables. the adi,j is 0 if there was no difference in the actual and the expected outcomes of the game and 1 if there was a difference, so the game ended with a surprise. with the new surprise variable, we were able to create a surprise index formula for basketball world cups, which measures the ratio of games that ended with a surprise to all possible surprises. the surprise index (si) ratio varies between 0 and 1. the si of a world cup is 0 if all the games ended as expected. conversely, a world cup with a si of 1 had only unexpected results, that is, surprises in all matches. the studies that measured luck in basketball leagues performed their analyses using seasonal data. however, there are substantially fewer games in world cups, so these methods would be difficult to apply to our dataset. therefore, we had to use other methods for quantifying luck in 3 × 3 and 5v5 basketball forms. the structures of the competitions in the olympic games are more similar to the basketball world cups than to the league system. csurilla et al. [3], in their study, explained that the olympic performance was based on the nations’ previous results at the olympic games. zero inflated beta regressions were applied by sport, and the normalized mean square errors of the models were the luck based noise factor. nevertheless, in accordance with other studies with binary variables, we used a probit model instead of ordinary least squares (ols) [39]. the following probit model was examined: where yi,j* is the actual outcome and eoi,j is the expected outcome of game i in basketball form j and εi,j is the unexplained variance of the model in basketball form j. in line with the theory, the two basketball forms by sex were compared on the basis of the pseudo r2s, the goodness of fit measures of the models [40]. the higher the magnitude of the pseudo r2 is in a basketball form, the less luck is involved. the probit models were run separately for basketball forms and sexes. ultimately, we intended to test whether there are statistical differences between the basketball forms and sexes because the methods described above are not suitable for that purpose. therefore, we invented a new competitive balance measure whereby the standard deviation represents the amount of luck. the relative score difference index (rsdi) is the ratio of point differences in a game to the difference in the final ranking of the teams. it can be calculated using the following formula: where δtpi,j is the total point difference and δfri,j is the final ranking difference of teams in game i and in basketball form j. the rsdi presents the point difference in a game relative to the position occupied in the final ranking. if a competition is balanced, close outcomes are expected in the games. therefore, the lower the mean rsdi is in a tournament, the more the competition is balanced. after calculating the rsdis, we were able to compute the standard deviations with the following formula: the standard deviation of the rsdi indicates the measure of luck in a competition. the explanation is straightforward: the more the rsdi varies in a sport, the more surprises arise in the outcomes of the games. finally, with the rsdi, we were able to test the differences between luck levels by form and sex. for this, we used a two way analysis of variance (anova). we collected the data from the game results of basketball world cups between 2010 and 2019 from the websites of the international basketball federation (fiba). the dataset contained altogether 12 tournaments, three world cups in each form (3 × 3 and 5v5) and sex. the data from the world cups held in 2010 were on the archive site of fiba (archive.fiba.com); the rest can be found on the current web page (www.fiba.basketball). table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the data. descriptive statistics of the variables used. note. n = 666 for all variables. the final rankings of the teams (final ranking a, final ranking b variables) were applied to calculate the expected and actual outcomes (expected outcome, actual outcome variables) of the games. the pi, si, and probit models were run using these variables. for the rsdi, the point differences of the games (using team a points, team b points variables) and the difference in the final rankings of the teams (using final ranking a, final ranking b variables) were applied. before presenting the results of each method, we present the correlations between the different measures. the results of the correlation analysis (table 2) indicate that all methods partly measure the luck in different ways. the results of the pi and the si are almost identical (0.998), and these two measures have the highest correlation. the results of the probit models and the rsdi also correlate highly (−0.960). the largest difference proved to be between the results of the pi and the rsdi. correlation matrix of the results of different methods. note. pi = performance indicator; si = surprise index; probit = probit models; and rsdi = relative score difference index. we carried out the analysis of the performance indicators and the surprise indexes first. thereafter, we estimated the probit models, and finally, we tested the statistical differences with an anova. the results of the methods are presented in the same order. as we expected, the men’s tournaments proved to be more influenced by luck than the women’s tournaments (h2). the standard deviation of the performance indicators was the highest for the 5v5 men’s basketball world cup in 2014. interestingly, the lowest value was zero. in the 3 × 3 women’s world cup in 2019, every actual outcome was the same as our expectation based on the final outcomes. the surprise indexes showed analogous results but with different magnitudes (table 3). the standard deviations of the performance indicators, the surprise indexes, and the total number of games for teams in 3 × 3 and 5v5 basketball world cups between 2010 and 2019. note. si = surprise index. for our research question, we compared the performance indicators on the basis of the means of the standard deviations and the surprise indexes on the basis of the means in the basketball forms and sexes (table 4). the means of the performance indicators’ standard deviations and surprise indexes were lower in the case of women in both basketball forms (0.047 and 0.049). the results imply that there were fewer surprises in the women’s world cup competitions than in the men’s competitions, especially in the 3 × 3 basketball form. the total standard deviations of the performance indicators, the surprise indexes, and the total number of games for teams by basketball form and sex. note. si = surprise index. similar to the results of the performance indicators and surprise indexes, the results of the probit models by the basketball form and sex suggest that luck had the most remarkable role in the men’s 3 × 3 world cups, and the women’s competitions showed less luck compared to the men’s games; the pseudo r2 of the probit model was the lowest for this form (0.446). conversely, the women’s 3 × 3 world cups had the highest pseudo r2 (0.719). luck played the smallest role in these tournaments, and the expected outcomes of the games explained the actual outcomes in the women’s 3 × 3 world cups quite accurately. all probit models and coefficients were significant at the 1% level (table 5). the results of the luck measuring probit models based on the unexplained variance, separated by basketball form and sex. note. standard errors in parentheses. *** z < 0.01. the results of the rsdi are slightly different from those of the previous methods (table 6). according to the means of the rsdis, the competition was the most balanced in the women’s 5v5 basketball world cups (1.773), followed by the women’s 3 × 3 (2.002). the men’s results follow in the same order (4.275 and 6.816). the standard deviations of the rsdis were completely identical in sequence to the means, which indicates that the most luck was involved in the 3 × 3 men’s basketball and the least in the women’s 5v5. the total standard deviations of the relative score difference indexes and the total number of games for teams by basketball form and sex. the two way anova also showed statistical differences between the basketball forms and sexes (table 7). the two forms, 3 × 3 and 5v5, presented the highest statistical difference followed by sex, both at the 1% significant level. the discrepancies in variation were also statistically significant in the four different forms by gender, but only at the 5% level. in conclusion, we can argue that there is a disparity in basketball forms and sexes regarding luck, and the differences are statistically significant at the 5% level. the results of the analysis of variance performed with the relative score difference indexes. the main purpose of our study was to determine if luck makes a difference in the match final results for different basketball forms (3 × 3 and 5v5) and sexes in world cup games. overall, four different measurement methods partly based on the literature, partly on our own new ideas were applied. the results of the performance indicators, surprise indexes, and the goodness of fit of the probit models were completely identical in terms of the sequence: the 3 × 3 women’s world cup had the lowest level of unexpected results based on the final ranking of teams. the women’s 3 × 3 was followed by the women’s and men’s 5v5 basketball form. the highest luck was associated with the 3 × 3 men’s world cups. the results of the rsdi, however, slightly differ from those of the other measures, and the significance of the difference could be tested in this case alone. the correlation analysis also showed the different results, and in this case, the relationship was only moderately strong. for the rsdi, another data point was applied (total points of a game) in addition to the ranking of the teams. this led to slightly different results compared to the previous ones. the standard deviation of the rsdi, which represents the amount of luck, was the lowest in women’s 5v5 basketball, followed by the women’s and men’s 3 × 3 in the same order. the results of the anova test showed statistical differences in both the form type and sex, at least at the 5% significance level. given the results of the test, we can suggest that nations that are chasing basketball success should focus on the women’s world cups, especially in the 5v5. in this form, luck has the least effect on the results. a correlation analysis has clearly confirmed that our methods for measuring luck are robust. pi and si measure luck almost identically, thus in the future, the results will be comparable for either method. the probit method is a more sophisticated statistical method, as it uses regression to estimate luck. its results are also highly correlated with the two indicators (pi and si). based on these results, we can claim that if we only consider the expected and the actual outcome of games, the methods used to measure luck in sports will give similar results. the slightly weaker but still strong correlation with the rsdi compared to the other indicators is due to the introduction of discarded points. the points scored in the games add another dimension to the luck formula, which is the difference in performance between the teams. in the future, a deeper, even match level, examination of the rsdi may be worthwhile to see what accounts for the greater and unexpected point differences. our analyses confirmed all our hypotheses (h1 and h2). on the one hand, we expected higher luck to be involved in 3 × 3 than in 5v5 basketball, and the anova test of the rsdi clearly demonstrated that assumption. the specific characteristics of 3 × 3 games, for example, their intensity [13,15,16] and their outdoor courts, tend to increase the unpredictability of this form. we could not distinguish which characteristic accounts for the difference, but this was not within the scope of our study. on the other hand, higher luck was expected in the men’s competitions and this hypothesis was also obviously confirmed. the men’s competitions were more balanced (see the results of the rsdi), and this tended to lead to higher luck in the competitions [7]. this finding is in line with previous studies that have found greater competitive balance in men’s contests [23,24]. there could be several possible explanations for our findings. firstly, a player’s performance has much more weight in the results of the game in 3 × 3 compared to 5v5. therefore, an outstandingly good or bad player in 3 × 3 can have a more decisive influence on the outcome of a tournament. secondly, the 3 × 3 form is still too new, and nations have only just begun to realize its importance, as it just became an olympic sport. the immense difference between men’s and women’s 3 × 3 basketball could be explained by the distinct approaches taken by men’s and women’s teams. a few nations (e.g., china, hungary, france, and russia) have started to focus on the 3 × 3 women’s world cups in recent years and the power relations of teams are more unequivocal. on the men’s side, however, serbia was the only nation that was able to perform at nearly the same level year after year. we assume that the difference between the two sexes will probably decrease over time, as in 5v5. after a few years, we will be able to analyze the stability of luck values in the 3 × 3 form. furthermore, in 5v5, the team is more important than any individual; this complexity tends to lead to more unexpected results. the difference in sexes is marginal; however, by each assessment method, the women’s 5v5 is expected to be more predictable. a possible explanation for this could be the paradox of skill phenomenon, which states that the more balanced the competition is, the more influence luck has on the results [7]. men’s competitions are usually more balanced compared to women’s contests [23,24]; consequently, this difference in luck could be associated with the paradox of skill phenomenon. those scientific comparisons are in line with personal observations including those from some of the authors’ own professional basketball experiences. there is a gap relating to the physical and technical knowledge in 3 × 3 games between women’s and men’s basketball teams. the differences between the team players are bigger in women’s teams, which is the case in women’s 5v5 as well. in the case of men, the differences between the team players are smaller. the potential limitations of the findings must be mentioned. measuring luck based on the final rankings of world cups is novel, but it has drawbacks as well. using the final rankings as the expected outcome does not consider the single elimination part of the tournaments because the outcomes will always coincide with the actual results in the knockout phases. nevertheless, the final rankings are the only way to compare different basketball forms by sex in terms of luck. moreover, the number of games in a world cup tends to have a major effect on the predictability of outcomes and, as a result, on luck. the men’s 5v5 basketball world cups contain the highest number of games. the burden of a long tournament requires more strategy and tactics from a team to maintain the requisite performance during the whole competition. performance optimization could lead to deliberate loss of matches, and the unexpected results tend to influence the level of luck. furthermore, we did not consider the effect of fluctuations in team strength on a tournament, which tend to act as luck. in the case of a basketball world cup which lasts for couple of weeks at most the fluctuation in team strength is almost impossible to capture. rather, we can talk about performance retention, which exists when the last group match whose result does not matter for one of the teams is used for rest. this phenomenon certainly gives some distortion to the calculations; however, it is difficult to prove when it has happened. the rsdi may be most affected by performance retention because it also uses the difference in points, which makes the rsdi more sensitive in the case of a very unexpected result. that could be a possible explanation for the different sequence in the results with the rsdi. finally, the contributions of our research should be addressed briefly as well. only a limited number of studies have been conducted on 3 × 3 basketball; therefore, this analysis alone could further contribute toward the understanding of the nature of this version of basketball. the results may provide many benefits to experts in various fields, from researchers to professional basketball players. firstly, luck is usually associated with predictability and the field of sports analytics, and data based sport results prediction are seeing growing interest in the academic world [8]. secondly, basketball coaches may better understand the differences between the two forms and sexes regarding luck if they are aware that the 3 × 3 game and men’s competitions are usually more influenced by luck. thirdly, basketball players could make a more realistic self performance evaluation if they were to understand that the results in 3 × 3 basketball games are less related to their performance compared to 5v5. ultimately, our findings could be useful for decision makers in sports governance as well. if a nation wants to go to the olympics or world championships, it should target women’s competitions and within them, the 5v5 form of basketball. because there is no difference in the number of medals that can be won, neither by form nor by sex, which would otherwise be an important aspect in the length of success [41]. if adequate support is allocated effectively for women’s teams, especially for the 5v5 women’s team, countries will be more likely to win a medal than if they supported the men’s teams. in our study, we do not claim that winning in basketball is a matter of luck. it is a very small but important factor moderating success. winning depends primarily on the tactical and physical preparation and the differences in the quality of both individual and team performances. luck, however, matters when the teams are very similar in all other respects, as they are in the world cup’s best ranked teams. here, luck can play a decisive role. the authors would like to thank andreas heuer for reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions and comments. conceptualization, g.c., z.b., and t.s.; methodology, g.c., a.g., and d.i.f.; software, g.c.; validation, a.g. and d.i.f.; formal analysis, g.c.; resources, z.b.; data curation, z.b.; writing original draft preparation, g.c. and m.r.; writing review and editing, m.r. and t.s.; supervision m.r. and t.s. all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. this data can be found here: https://www.fiba.basketball/. the authors declare no conflict of interest. this research received no external funding. disclaimer/publisher’s note: the statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of mdpi and/or the editor(s). mdpi and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. this section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. this data can be found here: https://www.fiba.basketball/. articles from international journal of environmental research and public health are provided here courtesy of multidisciplinary digital publishing institute (mdpi) connect with nlm national library of medicine 8600 rockville pike bethesda, md 20894

the gambler's fallacy, also known as the monte carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that, if an event (whose occurrences are independent and identically distributed) has occurred less frequently than expected, it is more likely to happen again in the future (or vice versa). the fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more likely to be six than is usually the case because there have recently been fewer than the expected number of sixes. the term "monte carlo fallacy" originates from an example of the phenomenon, in which the roulette wheel spun black 26 times in succession at the monte carlo casino in 1913.[1] the gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a fair coin. the outcomes in different tosses are statistically independent and the probability of getting heads on a single toss is .mw parser output .sfrac{white space:nowrap}.mw parser output .sfrac.tion,.mw parser output .sfrac .tion{display:inline block;vertical align: 0.5em;font size:85%;text align:center}.mw parser output .sfrac .num{display:block;line height:1em;margin:0.0em 0.1em;border bottom:1px solid}.mw parser output .sfrac .den{display:block;line height:1em;margin:0.1em 0.1em}.mw parser output .sr only{border:0;clip:rect(0,0,0,0);clip path:polygon(0px 0px,0px 0px,0px 0px);height:1px;margin: 1px;overflow:hidden;padding:0;position:absolute;width:1px}⁠1/2⁠ (one in two). the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is ⁠1/4⁠ (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is ⁠1/8⁠ (one in eight). in general, if ai is the event where toss i of a fair coin comes up heads, then: if after tossing four heads in a row, the next coin toss also came up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. since the probability of a run of five successive heads is ⁠1/32⁠ (one in thirty two), a person might believe that the next flip would be more likely to come up tails rather than heads again. this is incorrect and is an example of the gambler's fallacy. the event "5 heads in a row" and the event "first 4 heads, then a tails" are equally likely, each having probability ⁠1/32⁠. since the first four tosses turn up heads, the probability that the next toss is a head is: while a run of five heads has a probability of ⁠1/32⁠ = 0.03125 (a little over 3%), the misunderstanding lies in not realizing that this is the case only before the first coin is tossed. after the first four tosses in this example, the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are at that point equal to 1 (100%). the probability of a run of coin tosses of any length continuing for one more toss is always 0.5. the reasoning that a fifth toss is more likely to be tails because the previous four tosses were heads, with a run of luck in the past influencing the odds in the future, forms the basis of the fallacy. if a fair coin is flipped 21 times, the probability of 21 heads is 1 in 2,097,152. the probability of flipping a head after having already flipped 20 heads in a row is ⁠1/2⁠. assuming a fair coin: the probability of getting 20 heads then 1 tail, and the probability of getting 20 heads then another head are both 1 in 2,097,152. when flipping a fair coin 21 times, the outcome is equally likely to be 21 heads as 20 heads and then 1 tail. these two outcomes are equally as likely as any of the other combinations that can be obtained from 21 flips of a coin. all of the 21 flip combinations will have probabilities equal to 0.521, or 1 in 2,097,152. assuming that a change in the probability will occur as a result of the outcome of prior flips is incorrect because every outcome of a 21 flip sequence is as likely as the other outcomes. in accordance with bayes' theorem, the likely outcome of each flip is the probability of the fair coin, which is ⁠1/2⁠. the fallacy leads to the incorrect notion that previous failures will create an increased probability of success on subsequent attempts. for a fair 16 sided die, the probability of each outcome occurring is ⁠1/16⁠ (6.25%). if a win is defined as rolling a 1, the probability of a 1 occurring at least once in 16 rolls is: the probability of a loss on the first roll is ⁠15/16⁠ (93.75%). according to the fallacy, the player should have a higher chance of winning after one loss has occurred. the probability of at least one win is now: by losing one toss, the player's probability of winning drops by two percentage points. with 5 losses and 11 rolls remaining, the probability of winning drops to around 0.5 (50%). the probability of at least one win does not increase after a series of losses; indeed, the probability of success actually decreases, because there are fewer trials left in which to win. the probability of winning will eventually be equal to the probability of winning a single toss, which is ⁠1/16⁠ (6.25%) and occurs when only one toss is left. after a consistent tendency towards tails, a gambler may also decide that tails has become a more likely outcome. this is a rational and bayesian conclusion, bearing in mind the possibility that the coin may not be fair; it is not a fallacy. believing the odds to favor tails, the gambler sees no reason to change to heads. however it is a fallacy that a sequence of trials carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes. the inverse gambler's fallacy described by ian hacking is a situation where a gambler entering a room and seeing a person rolling a double six on a pair of dice may erroneously conclude that the person must have been rolling the dice for quite a while, as they would be unlikely to get a double six on their first attempt. researchers have examined whether a similar bias exists for inferences about unknown past events based upon known subsequent events, calling this the "retrospective gambler's fallacy".[2] an example of a retrospective gambler's fallacy would be to observe multiple successive "heads" on a coin toss and conclude from this that the previously unknown flip was "tails".[2] real world examples of retrospective gambler's fallacy have been argued to exist in events such as the origin of the universe. in his book universes, john leslie argues that "the presence of vastly many universes very different in their characters might be our best explanation for why at least one universe has a life permitting character".[3] daniel m. oppenheimer and benoît monin argue that "in other words, the 'best explanation' for a low probability event is that it is only one in a multiple of trials, which is the core intuition of the reverse gambler's fallacy."[2] philosophical arguments are ongoing about whether such arguments are or are not a fallacy, arguing that the occurrence of our universe says nothing about the existence of other universes or trials of universes.[4][5] three studies involving stanford university students tested the existence of a retrospective gamblers' fallacy. all three studies concluded that people have a gamblers' fallacy retrospectively as well as to future events.[2] the authors of all three studies concluded their findings have significant "methodological implications" but may also have "important theoretical implications" that need investigation and research, saying "[a] thorough understanding of such reasoning processes requires that we not only examine how they influence our predictions of the future, but also our perceptions of the past."[2] in 1796, pierre simon laplace described in a philosophical essay on probabilities the ways in which men calculated their probability of having sons: "i have seen men, ardently desirous of having a son, who could learn only with anxiety of the births of boys in the month when they expected to become fathers. imagining that the ratio of these births to those of girls ought to be the same at the end of each month, they judged that the boys already born would render more probable the births next of girls." the expectant fathers feared that if more sons were born in the surrounding community, then they themselves would be more likely to have a daughter. this essay by laplace is regarded as one of the earliest descriptions of the fallacy.[6] likewise, after having multiple children of the same sex, some parents may erroneously believe that they are due to have a child of the opposite sex. an example of the gambler's fallacy occurred in a game of roulette at the monte carlo casino on august 18, 1913, when the ball fell in black 26 times in a row. this was an extremely unlikely occurrence: the probability of a sequence of either red or black occurring 26 times in a row is (⁠18/37⁠)26 1 or around 1 in 66.6 million, assuming the mechanism is unbiased. gamblers lost millions of francs betting against black, reasoning incorrectly that the streak was causing an imbalance in the randomness of the wheel, and that it had to be followed by a long streak of red.[1] the gambler's fallacy does not apply when the probability of different events is not independent. in such cases, the probability of future events can change based on the outcome of past events, such as the statistical permutation of events. an example is when cards are drawn from a deck without replacement. if an ace is drawn from a deck and not reinserted, the next card drawn is less likely to be an ace and more likely to be of another rank. the probability of drawing another ace, assuming that it was the first card drawn and that there are no jokers, has decreased from ⁠4/52⁠ (7.69%) to ⁠3/51⁠ (5.88%), while the probability for each other rank has increased from ⁠4/52⁠ (7.69%) to ⁠4/51⁠ (7.84%). this effect allows card counting systems to work in games such as blackjack. in most illustrations of the gambler's fallacy and the reverse gambler's fallacy, the trial (e.g. flipping a coin) is assumed to be fair. in practice, this assumption may not hold. for example, if a coin is flipped 21 times, the probability of 21 heads with a fair coin is 1 in 2,097,152. since this probability is so small, if it happens, it may well be that the coin is somehow biased towards landing on heads, or that it is being controlled by hidden magnets, or similar.[7] in this case, the smart bet is "heads" because bayesian inference from the empirical evidence   21 heads in a row   suggests that the coin is likely to be biased toward heads. bayesian inference can be used to show that when the long run proportion of different outcomes is unknown but exchangeable (meaning that the random process from which the outcomes are generated may be biased but is equally likely to be biased in any direction) and that previous observations demonstrate the likely direction of the bias, the outcome which has occurred the most in the observed data is the most likely to occur again.[8] for example, if the a priori probability of a biased coin is say 1%, and assuming that such a biased coin would come down heads say 60% of the time, then after 21 heads the probability of a biased coin has increased to about 32%. the opening scene of the play rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead by tom stoppard discusses these issues as one man continually flips heads and the other considers various possible explanations. if external factors are allowed to change the probability of the events, the gambler's fallacy may not hold. for example, a change in the game rules might favour one player over the other, improving his or her win percentage. similarly, an inexperienced player's success may decrease after opposing teams learn about and play against their weaknesses. this is another example of bias. the gambler's fallacy arises out of a belief in a law of small numbers, leading to the erroneous belief that small samples must be representative of the larger population. according to the fallacy, streaks must eventually even out in order to be representative.[9] amos tversky and daniel kahneman first proposed that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic called the representativeness heuristic, which states that people evaluate the probability of a certain event by assessing how similar it is to events they have experienced before, and how similar the events surrounding those two processes are.[10][9] according to this view, "after observing a long run of red on the roulette wheel, for example, most people erroneously believe that black will result in a more representative sequence than the occurrence of an additional red",[10] so people expect that a short run of random outcomes should share properties of a longer run, specifically in that deviations from average should balance out. when people are asked to make up a random looking sequence of coin tosses, they tend to make sequences where the proportion of heads to tails stays closer to 0.5 in any short segment than would be predicted by chance, a phenomenon known as insensitivity to sample size.[11] kahneman and tversky interpret this to mean that people believe short sequences of random events should be representative of longer ones.[9] the representativeness heuristic is also cited behind the related phenomenon of the clustering illusion, according to which people see streaks of random events as being non random when such streaks are actually much more likely to occur in small samples than people expect.[12] the gambler's fallacy can also be attributed to the mistaken belief that gambling, or even chance itself, is a fair process that can correct itself in the event of streaks, known as the just world hypothesis.[13] other researchers believe that belief in the fallacy may be the result of a mistaken belief in an internal locus of control. when a person believes that gambling outcomes are the result of their own skill, they may be more susceptible to the gambler's fallacy because they reject the idea that chance could overcome skill or talent.[14] some researchers believe that it is possible to define two types of gambler's fallacy: type one and type two. type one is the classic gambler's fallacy, where individuals believe that a particular outcome is due after a long streak of another outcome. type two gambler's fallacy, as defined by gideon keren and charles lewis, occurs when a gambler underestimates how many observations are needed to detect a favorable outcome, such as watching a roulette wheel for a length of time and then betting on the numbers that appear most often. for events with a high degree of randomness, detecting a bias that will lead to a favorable outcome takes an impractically large amount of time and is very difficult, if not impossible, to do.[15] the two types differ in that type one wrongly assumes that gambling conditions are fair and perfect, while type two assumes that the conditions are biased, and that this bias can be detected after a certain amount of time. another variety, known as the retrospective gambler's fallacy, occurs when individuals judge that a seemingly rare event must come from a longer sequence than a more common event does. the belief that an imaginary sequence of die rolls is more than three times as long when a set of three sixes is observed as opposed to when there are only two sixes. this effect can be observed in isolated instances, or even sequentially. another example would involve hearing that a teenager has unprotected sex and becomes pregnant on a given night, and concluding that she has been engaging in unprotected sex for longer than if we hear she had unprotected sex but did not become pregnant, when the probability of becoming pregnant as a result of each intercourse is independent of the amount of prior intercourse.[16] another psychological perspective states that gambler's fallacy can be seen as the counterpart to basketball's hot hand fallacy, in which people tend to predict the same outcome as the previous event   known as positive recency   resulting in a belief that a high scorer will continue to score. in the gambler's fallacy, people predict the opposite outcome of the previous event   negative recency   believing that since the roulette wheel has landed on black on the previous six occasions, it is due to land on red the next. ayton and fischer have theorized that people display positive recency for the hot hand fallacy because the fallacy deals with human performance, and that people do not believe that an inanimate object can become "hot."[17] human performance is not perceived as random, and people are more likely to continue streaks when they believe that the process generating the results is nonrandom.[18] when a person exhibits the gambler's fallacy, they are more likely to exhibit the hot hand fallacy as well, suggesting that one construct is responsible for the two fallacies.[14] the difference between the two fallacies is also found in economic decision making. a study by huber, kirchler, and stockl in 2010 examined how the hot hand and the gambler's fallacy are exhibited in the financial market. the researchers gave their participants a choice: they could either bet on the outcome of a series of coin tosses, use an expert opinion to sway their decision, or choose a risk free alternative instead for a smaller financial reward. participants turned to the expert opinion to make their decision 24% of the time based on their past experience of success, which exemplifies the hot hand. if the expert was correct, 78% of the participants chose the expert's opinion again, as opposed to 57% doing so when the expert was wrong. the participants also exhibited the gambler's fallacy, with their selection of either heads or tails decreasing after noticing a streak of either outcome. this experiment helped bolster ayton and fischer's theory that people put more faith in human performance than they do in seemingly random processes.[19] while the representativeness heuristic and other cognitive biases are the most commonly cited cause of the gambler's fallacy, research suggests that there may also be a neurological component. functional magnetic resonance imaging has shown that after losing a bet or gamble, known as riskloss, the frontoparietal network of the brain is activated, resulting in more risk taking behavior. in contrast, there is decreased activity in the amygdala, caudate, and ventral striatum after a riskloss. activation in the amygdala is negatively correlated with gambler's fallacy, so that the more activity exhibited in the amygdala, the less likely an individual is to fall prey to the gambler's fallacy. these results suggest that gambler's fallacy relies more on the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive, goal directed processes, and less on the brain areas that control affective decision making. the desire to continue gambling or betting is controlled by the striatum, which supports a choice outcome contingency learning method. the striatum processes the errors in prediction and the behavior changes accordingly. after a win, the positive behavior is reinforced and after a loss, the behavior is conditioned to be avoided. in individuals exhibiting the gambler's fallacy, this choice outcome contingency method is impaired, and they continue to make risks after a series of losses.[20] the gambler's fallacy is a deep seated cognitive bias and can be very hard to overcome. educating individuals about the nature of randomness has not always proven effective in reducing or eliminating any manifestation of the fallacy. participants in a study by beach and swensson in 1967 were shown a shuffled deck of index cards with shapes on them, and were instructed to guess which shape would come next in a sequence. the experimental group of participants was informed about the nature and existence of the gambler's fallacy, and were explicitly instructed not to rely on run dependency to make their guesses. the control group was not given this information. the response styles of the two groups were similar, indicating that the experimental group still based their choices on the length of the run sequence. this led to the conclusion that instructing individuals about randomness is not sufficient in lessening the gambler's fallacy.[21] an individual's susceptibility to the gambler's fallacy may decrease with age. a study by fischbein and schnarch in 1997 administered a questionnaire to five groups: students in grades 5, 7, 9, 11, and college students specializing in teaching mathematics. none of the participants had received any prior education regarding probability. the question asked was: "ronni flipped a coin three times and in all cases heads came up. ronni intends to flip the coin again. what is the chance of getting heads the fourth time?" the results indicated that as the students got older, the less likely they were to answer with "smaller than the chance of getting tails", which would indicate a negative recency effect. 35% of the 5th graders, 35% of the 7th graders, and 20% of the 9th graders exhibited the negative recency effect. only 10% of the 11th graders answered this way, and none of the college students did. fischbein and schnarch theorized that an individual's tendency to rely on the representativeness heuristic and other cognitive biases can be overcome with age.[22] another possible solution comes from roney and trick, gestalt psychologists who suggest that the fallacy may be eliminated as a result of grouping. when a future event such as a coin toss is described as part of a sequence, no matter how arbitrarily, a person will automatically consider the event as it relates to the past events, resulting in the gambler's fallacy. when a person considers every event as independent, the fallacy can be greatly reduced.[23] roney and trick told participants in their experiment that they were betting on either two blocks of six coin tosses, or on two blocks of seven coin tosses. the fourth, fifth, and sixth tosses all had the same outcome, either three heads or three tails. the seventh toss was grouped with either the end of one block, or the beginning of the next block. participants exhibited the strongest gambler's fallacy when the seventh trial was part of the first block, directly after the sequence of three heads or tails. the researchers pointed out that the participants that did not show the gambler's fallacy showed less confidence in their bets and bet fewer times than the participants who picked with the gambler's fallacy. when the seventh trial was grouped with the second block, and was perceived as not being part of a streak, the gambler's fallacy did not occur. roney and trick argued that instead of teaching individuals about the nature of randomness, the fallacy could be avoided by training people to treat each event as if it is a beginning and not a continuation of previous events. they suggested that this would prevent people from gambling when they are losing, in the mistaken hope that their chances of winning are due to increase based on an interaction with previous events. within a real world setting, numerous studies have uncovered that for various decision makers placed in high stakes scenarios, it is likely they will reflect some degree of strong negative autocorrelation in their judgement. in a study aimed at discovering if the negative autocorrelation that exists with the gambler's fallacy existed in the decision made by u.s. asylum judges, results showed that after two successive asylum grants, a judge would be 5.5% less likely to approve a third grant.[24] in the game of baseball, decisions are made every minute. one particular decision made by umpires which is often subject to scrutiny is the 'strike zone' decision. whenever a batter does not swing, the umpire must decide if the ball was within a fair region for the batter, known as the strike zone. if outside of this zone, the ball does not count towards outing the batter. in a study of over 12,000 games, results showed that umpires are 1.3% less likely to call a strike if the previous two balls were also strikes.[24] in the decision making of loan officers, it can be argued that monetary incentives are a key factor in biased decision making, rendering it harder to examine the gambler's fallacy effect. however, research shows that loan officers who are not incentivised by monetary gain are 8% less likely to approve a loan if they approved one for the previous client.[25] lottery play and jackpots entice gamblers around the globe, with the biggest decision for hopeful winners being what numbers to pick. while most people will have their own strategy, evidence shows that after a number is selected as a winner in the current draw, the same number will experience a significant drop in selections in the following lottery. a popular study by charles clotfelter and philip cook investigated this effect in 1991, where they concluded bettors would cease to select numbers immediately after they were selected, ultimately recovering selection popularity within three months.[27] soon after, a 1994 study was constructed by dek terrell to test the findings of clotfelter and cook. the key change in terrell's study was the examination of a pari mutuel lottery in which, a number selected with lower total wagers placed on it will result in a higher pay out. while this examination did conclude that players in both types of lotteries exhibited behaviour in line with the gambler's fallacy theory, those who took part in pari mutuel betting seemed to be less influenced.[26] winning numbers compared to day of draw the effect the of gambler's fallacy can be observed as numbers are chosen far less frequently soon after they are selected as winners, recovering slowly over a two month period. for example, on the 11th of april 1988, 41 players selected 244 as the winning combination. three days later only 24 individuals selected 244, a 41.5% decrease. this is the gambler's fallacy in motion, as lottery players believe that the occurrence of a winning combination in previous days will decrease its likelihood of occurring today. several video games feature the use of loot boxes, a collection of in game items awarded on opening with random contents set by rarity metrics, as a monetization scheme. since around 2018, loot boxes have come under scrutiny from governments and advocates on the basis they are akin to gambling, particularly for games aimed at youth. some games use a special "pity timer" mechanism, that if the player has opened several loot boxes in a row without obtaining a high rarity item, subsequent loot boxes will improve the odds of a higher rate item drop. this is considered to feed into the gambler's fallacy since it reinforces the idea that a player will eventually obtain a high rarity item (a win) after only receiving common items from a string of previous loot boxes.[28]

welcome to the home of the dark elves skip to content moderators: layne, the dread knights post by columind » wed sep 22, 2004 6:35 pm post by darzhar » wed sep 22, 2004 6:39 pm post by archdukechocula » wed sep 22, 2004 6:48 pm post by columind » wed sep 22, 2004 6:59 pm post by mtucache » wed sep 22, 2004 6:59 pm post by bloodtemplar » wed sep 22, 2004 8:11 pm post by columind » wed sep 22, 2004 9:05 pm post by bloodtemplar » wed sep 22, 2004 9:24 pm post by dictator » wed sep 22, 2004 9:26 pm post by columind » wed sep 22, 2004 10:31 pm post by imrael » tue sep 28, 2004 12:23 pm post by bloodtemplar » tue sep 28, 2004 2:32 pm post by puppyblue » thu sep 30, 2004 1:11 pm post by malleroth » fri oct 01, 2004 10:55 am return to “druchii tactics & army discussion” powered by phpbb® forum software © phpbb limited prosilver dark edition by premium phpbb styles privacy | terms

something went wrong. wait a moment and try again.
in the long run, consistency and skill tend to win out over luck. by peter coy opinion writer rory mcilroy of northern ireland, one of the greatest golfers of his generation, suffered a crushing loss at the u.s. open this month when he missed short putts on two of the last three holes. please keep reading even if you don’t give a bogey about golf, because i’m going explain how the strategies that make someone a better golfer can help in other parts of life, such as personal finances. it comes down to focusing on what really matters and avoiding dumb mistakes. my main source for today’s newsletter is mark broadie, who has dual credentials that are more related to each other than you might expect. he’s both an expert on golf strategy and a professor at columbia business school specializing in security pricing, computational finance and programming for business research. ten years ago, broadie wrote a book, “every shot counts: using the revolutionary strokes gained approach to improve your golf performance and strategy.” it’s not about how to square your shoulders or adjust your grip on the club. it’s insight gained from dynamic programming, which is a tool that’s extensively used by economists, for example in calculating the optimal saving rate. (an aside: broadie is a former champion of pelham country club. i, on the other hand, have higher golf scores than bowling scores.) back to mcilroy. immediately after his loss, people said he needed to work harder on his putting because, as is often said, tapping the ball around the green accounts for 40 percent of the strokes in a typical game.

 linkedin and 3rd parties use essential and non essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off linkedin. learn more in our cookie policy. select accept to consent or reject to decline non essential cookies for this use. you can update your choices at any time in your settings. agree & join linkedin by clicking continue to join or sign in, you agree to linkedin’s user agreement, privacy policy, and cookie policy. executive director at acg los angeles | building stronger business communities in his newsletter, peter coy discusses how strategies that improve golf performance can be applied to other areas of life, such as personal finances. he highlights insights from mark broadie, a golf strategy expert and columbia business school professor, who emphasizes the importance of consistency and skill over luck.