Why professional athletes don’t make good predictors
Any person who more or less professionally engaged in betting, it is easy to call a major mistake when betting, the main difference between this and a sport in itself. Deadly for the player to confuse special knowledge in the field with knowledge about the nuances of the placement. Unfortunately, the current fashion for retraining of the recent stars of professional athletes in the tipster and/or experts only aggravates like.
A similar long-known in the art. Psychologists who study the industry, called it a manifestation of the long-known “green lumber fallacy. The latter traditionally understand freshly cut trees. One of the best traders in this commodity did not even know it, believing, perhaps naively, and that someone just paint some wood in that color. About this legend remembered Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the bestselling “Anthropist” telling a new story: the largest broker specialized in Swiss francs in the market, overawed by the task to find the Switzerland on the world map.
It’s simple: Yes, people didn’t know what to sell. But he recognized the risk in the order of deeper and thinner than their competitors. No knowledge of the nuances of the market, in the case of betting — sports, it is important. But the good, “delivered”risk awareness is even more important. No, with the views of recent players can also be considered, and their notes — read carefully before placing a bet. The main thing is to proceed from the fact that the game and betting on it — two areas, and they are quite different.
Michael Lewis in his book “Dengosa” one of the first clubs called Major League baseball to abandon the usual subjective analysis in favour of an analytical approach, the basis for which elected few, but significant indicators. Having studied the suggestions and experience of their implementation in the United States, managers of several teams in the English Premier League declined to subjective traditional approach is complicated by confirmation bias, in favour of an adequate quantitative evaluation.
Something like the expert recommends to do and when placing sports bets. One of the main theses: in-depth knowledge and/or experienced is not enough awareness of the stakes. Broadcasters and journalists are more interested in exciting stories and tend to fit the latter under itself, to justify mistakes. Trite, but the main thing for them — the reader’s demand, the amount familiarised with the note or looked at the program. The experts themselves, rarely risking hard-earned money, so their attempts to assess the risk or advise projections are often simply not enough balanced.