Part 2 laughing at our "logical" conclusions

[The Old LefHook]

I have no issue with Apples, so he can dry his tears. He is one of the better posters. It was an epiphany to me to realize that we (all of us) perform identically when evaluating real matches and mythical match-ups before they occur. We do nothing differently. If so, what would that be? See what I mean?

[them_apples]

I postulate: Any of us would do exactly as well predicting the outcomes of mythical match-ups as we would predicting the outcomes of real bouts before they happen. There is no difference in application.

If you are being sarcastic I’m not sure. Actually though, its similar to using a tanning bed. The label might say you got 10x the chance of getting skin cancer - but its actually doesn’t mean as much as you think, when the initial risk is 1 in 25000 for example.

I’m not sure if I understood you though. Yeah a seasoned boxing follower or even better might have a better chance than an absolute nobody. But a casual and an expert going back as far 100 years, I would like to see the actual outcome if its ever possible.

hey man I’m just as pissed as you are, For the record on a dirt track I would have picked Owens - but I wouldn’t have been sure of it.

[The Old LefHook]

We evaluate the match-ups the same. If there is something we do differently in a mythical match-up analysis, please name it. All we can really claim is that the "information is more dense," for the contemporary match-up. We may claim it is more dense, but can we really claim it is more reliable, just because of time?

[QueensburyRules]

For the record on a dirt track I would have picked Owens - but I wouldn’t have been sure of it.

- - I'd have been sure Jesse was the greatest all around track and field athlete ever excluding Jim Thorpe, and needless to say they well before my time after all jesse records had been broken.

[The Old LefHook]

Our betting line for Dempsey versus Fury should be about as accurate as Fury vs Wilder 1 was, for instance. And I can prove it to reasonable men, though of course never to halfwits. The first time they fought, Wilder was the favorite, we just had their performances against others and raw statistics to go by. That is precisely what we will have to work with in Fury vs Dempsey 1. However, we know they will be using Dempsey's gloves, and we know the referee hails from Dempsey's era as well, as do the judges. There will be no ring card girls, and smoking is allowed in the auditorium.

Now, just how inaccurate are our predictions supposed to become when dealing with mythical match-ups, instead of actual fights that are coming soon? Ponder the question carefully. Over the long haul, we would get 50% correct simply by drawing names out of a hat blindly and predicting our draw to be the winner. Do we do a great deal better than that with our usual predictions when similarly rated fighters oppose one another? Not really. We might be at 60% instead of 50%. That is not that much better. But neither are we ever dipping below 50% for long, either, when predicting the outcomes of mythical matches, for we can never be expected to do worse than random guessing where no information whatsoever is used, except by accident for short periods of time.

Of course it never takes odds makers long to adapt. Their next fight, Wilder was no longer the favorite coming in. Their third fight he was a definite dog. Odds makers would adapt similarly in mythical match-ups, if they were ever to become real. If a few old boys pulled upsets right away, believe me, the odds makers would adapt quickly and tentatively install a sort of old timer bias into their analyses.

[markusmod]

Our betting line for Dempsey versus Fury should be about as accurate as Fury vs Wilder 1 was, for instance. And I can prove it to reasonable men, though of course never to halfwits. The first time they fought, Wilder was the favorite, we just had their performances against others and raw statistics to go by. That is precisely what we will have to work with in Fury vs Dempsey 1. However, we know they will be using Dempsey's gloves, and we know the referee hails from Dempsey's era as well, as do the judges. There will be no ring card girls, and smoking is allowed in the auditorium.

Now, just how inaccurate are our predictions supposed to become when dealing with mythical match-ups, instead of actual fights that are coming soon? Ponder the question carefully. Over the long haul, we would get 50% correct simply by drawing names out of a hat blindly and predicting our draw to be the winner. Do we do a great deal better than that with our usual predictions when similarly rated fighters oppose one another? Not really. We might be at 60% instead of 50%. That is not that much better. But neither are we ever dipping below 50% for long, either, when predicting the outcomes of mythical matches, for we can never be expected to do worse than random guessing where no information whatsoever is used, except by accident for short periods of time.

Of course it never takes odds makers long to adapt. Their next fight, Wilder was no longer the favorite coming in. Their third fight he was a definite dog. Odds makers would adapt similarly in mythical match-ups, if they were ever to become real. If a few old boys pulled upsets right away, believe me, the odds makers would adapt quickly and tentatively install a sort of old timer bias into their analyses.

What was the betting line for Fury-Wilder 1? I don't remember?

[QueensburyRules]

What was the betting line for Fury-Wilder 1? I don't remember?

- - Surely you remember Flubber starting his comeback weak as a newborn kitty vs Seferi and as off balance of the drunk he was a few months earlier.

[markusmod]

- - Surely you remember Flubber starting his comeback weak as a newborn kitty vs Seferi and as off balance of the drunk he was a few months earlier.

Yes, but I don't remember the betting line.