Greetings to the Odd person and Oddsmaker who shows up to the lecture. We want to talk today about why [1] gathering information, (which for purposes of this post we'll define as (a) honest and (b) definite) is hard and why [2] extrapolating or predicting from it drives men mad.In the first place, let's take the simple coin flip: we assign a committee to collect outcomes (that takes care of honesty) and define those outcomes as, and only as, one of 2 possible outcomes (heads/tails).
If, after what seems a reasonable number (and we'll agree that this can be --and will be-- argued about!) of trials we come up with the following: 342 tails; 12 heads, can we conclude anything?
Those who raised their hands and said "It's Bernie Ecclestone's coin!" may go to the head of the class
Because that's merely saying that the coin is not perfectly balanced.
Because if it were, every single trial would have a 50% chance of being heads or tails. And, now here comes the tricky part, so pay attention --especially if you think you know this!
IF THE COIN IS PERFECTLY BALANCED , AS THE NUMBER OF FLIPS INCREASES, THE RESULTS OF THE SERIES ARE INCREASINGLY LIKELY TO SHOW A SMALLER AND SMALLER DEVIATION FROM THE PERFECT 50:50 RATIO.
But, even in this crazily precise world of coin flips (that is only two possible outcomes) it is ONLY LIKELY. It is not required. The reason casinos stay in business is because ordinary saps cannot HELP themselves and if they're wrong about the coin, which is always possible, and even though it is Bernie's coin, it COULD be perfectly balanced, so on the next toss, if it is, it really COULD come up tails as easily as heads.
Of course, if it isn't balanced, the statistics you have gathered on it will show, if you continue to gather them a greater and greater liklihood to arrive at a measurable probablity on any given throw of tails showing up.
All this means, in layman's racing terms, is that when you examine an argument based on the collection of some data you have to know what is being measured and how it is being recorded.
Remember a couple of seasons ago in Brazil when Fisi won his first GP? Or was it Kimi? Or was it neither? Or was it both? The problem is that there are always (in a GP) several possible outcomes -- and by the time we have enough data to make reasonably accurate predictions, the season is over.
That's why we race. To find out, really, who won -- and then to argue about whether or not he (or she) should have or would have or could have if if if
Still. It's fun to collect data and part of the excitement of this season, for us, at least, if not for him, is how long J.B. can go before he busts the nut. Given the complexities he could be the best driver in the history of the world and retire as the best one never to win a race.
Jim
) still very well entitled to have a different view.
