Analysis Premium Point of Difference
- Thread starter Impromptu
- Start date
Great discussion. It's called Conditional Change for a good reason. Nothing has changed in regard to the condition of your first pick. You have basically split the items into 2 groups. Your pick with 33.3% chance of success, and the all the "rest" you didn't pick with 66.7% of success. Nothing has changed the condition of your pick by revealing something about the "rest". The condition of the "rest" has however changed. It still contains a 66.7% chance of being right, but we have removed one of the items from the group. It leaves all the items in the "rest" still holding a 66.7% chance. As there is only one item in the rest now, it holds the entire 66.7%.
It works on a similar basis with 4 curtains. You choose one, 25% chance of success. The "rest" has a 75% chance of success. The host shows you one of the curtains from the rest, now leaving 2 items in that group, that still hold the entire 75% chance. If you choose between those items you increase your chance of winning to 37.5%, as opposed to holding your original choice, and it's attached 25% chance.
Remember, you change nothing about the "condition" of your original pick, by changing the "condition" of the "rest" group by removing a known fail.
It works on a similar basis with 4 curtains. You choose one, 25% chance of success. The "rest" has a 75% chance of success. The host shows you one of the curtains from the rest, now leaving 2 items in that group, that still hold the entire 75% chance. If you choose between those items you increase your chance of winning to 37.5%, as opposed to holding your original choice, and it's attached 25% chance.
Remember, you change nothing about the "condition" of your original pick, by changing the "condition" of the "rest" group by removing a known fail.
Last edited:
The RowsusFly Effect (aka butterfly effect) is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions, where:
- a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system (such as a Rowsus question from Denmark)
- can result in large differences to a later state (such as everyone's comments in Australia)
I agree, though I think Jay in this context was talking of Jack in terms of a pinch-hitting role, where Rowsus' analysis has shown that he performs much higher than average (26.5% higher) against the bottom 7 clubs, 3 of which appear in the Swans' first 3 rounds. Jack may evolve into one of those consistent kick arse players where he scores well against all teams, but he's not there yet, as he hasn't shown the noted consecutive games of consistency - Rowsus' analysis shows him as a flat track bully'.
It will be interesting. Jack is in my team for that very reason. I'm hoping he will increase in price as GAJ drops in price, then upgrade Jack to GAJ at round 5 or so.
But what if he has a 'quiet' week against Geelong in R4? Does that prove Rowsus' flat-track bully theory? Is that the time I should trade him as per my original plan? Or do I hold on until Brisbane in R6? Two 'quiet' scores in a row will undo any gain from the first 3 rounds.
On the other hand, it will be so tempting to keep Jack if he performs well. If Jack comes out against Geelong and blasts out a top score, it might just mean he has become a kick arse consistent player, disproving the flat-track bully theory and turning Jack into a keeper instead of a pinch-hitter.
I don't know if this 'Conditional Change' theory means I have a 66% chance of doing better if I swap to GAJ rather than keeping Jack, but it highlights the natural tendency to stick with your original choice rather than make a change. It will require discipline to stick to the original strategy, that's for sure!
It will be interesting. Jack is in my team for that very reason. I'm hoping he will increase in price as GAJ drops in price, then upgrade Jack to GAJ at round 5 or so.
But what if he has a 'quiet' week against Geelong in R4? Does that prove Rowsus' flat-track bully theory? Is that the time I should trade him as per my original plan? Or do I hold on until Brisbane in R6? Two 'quiet' scores in a row will undo any gain from the first 3 rounds.
On the other hand, it will be so tempting to keep Jack if he performs well. If Jack comes out against Geelong and blasts out a top score, it might just mean he has become a kick arse consistent player, disproving the flat-track bully theory and turning Jack into a keeper instead of a pinch-hitter.
I don't know if this 'Conditional Change' theory means I have a 66% chance of doing better if I swap to GAJ rather than keeping Jack, but it highlights the natural tendency to stick with your original choice rather than make a change. It will require discipline to stick to the original strategy, that's for sure!
