>skill and discipline are often small factors compared to random events/luck.
I don't see the point of saying this. No one has any control over
luck, so, no matter how much of a factor it plays in results, it can't
be relevant.
nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com wrote:
>Bob wrote: "When you are good, sometimes you are over-royaled and sometimes you are under-royaled, but these things eventually average out and when they do, you're going to be ahead of the game."
>That's the Monte Carlo fallacy. As long as there's no regression to the mean, things don't "average out". Just because you had a bad run, you can't expect to get a good run to compensate
"Average out" could mean that there is a tendency towards the
compensation that you refer to or it could mean that in percentage
terms, results tend to converge to expected value. I think Bob meant
the latter. I don't think he believes in the "due theory."
Posted by: 007 <007@embarqmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (16) |
