Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[Dissector]

No batsman ever comes close to facing 1,000,000 Test deliveries. And if you do the heads\tails 1,000 times experiment 100 times, you'll almost certainly get different results every single time, even if only by 10 h\ts.

The law of large numbers doesn't need anything close to a million trials to make an impact. For example here is a graph of a dice roll experiment which converges to the mean after a few hundred trials.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That's a waste of time. Asperger's Syndrome is so varied a spectrum that one cannot possibly hope to think they know a thing about one case based on another.

Not true. Each individual case might be slightly different but there are a number of common characteristics.

 

[Richard]

The law of large numbers doesn't need anything close to a million trials to make an impact. For example here is a graph of a dice roll experiment which converges to the mean after a few hundred trials.

Die-rolls are hardly comparable to let-offs. A coin-toss is far more viable, in that there are 6 possible values to a dice and just 2 for a coin or a let-off.

As I said - you'll almost certainly have to do a flip-coin experiment one hell of a lot of times before you get 500 heads and 500 tails out of 1000 flips.

 

[Richard]

Not true. Each individual case might be slightly different but there are a number of common characteristics.

There are also cases where many common characteristics (and there are not a few) don't apply, and if you believe some of the claptrap that's written you'd think all AS cases had hundreds of things in common.

To have AS is no guarantee of any one common characteristic amongst it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As I said - you'll have to do a flip-coin experiment one hell of a lot of times before you get 500 heads and 500 tails out of 1000 flips.

Not true. It's just as likely to happen the first time as the 500th.

 

[Richard]

Indeed it is. And it's exceptionally unlikely every single time, too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There are also cases where many common characteristics (and there are not a few) don't apply, and if you believe some of the claptrap that's written you'd think all AS cases had hundreds of things in common.

To have AS is no guarantee of any one common characteristic amongst it.

I'll just leave my original advice in the hands of zaremba and see if he spots anything he recognises.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Indeed it is. And it's exceptionally unlikely every single time, too.

So it isn't true to say you'd have to do it a hell of lot times, there's no way of gauging it.

 

[Richard]

It's true that you probably would, however.

 

[Dissector]

Die-rolls are hardly comparable to let-offs. A coin-toss is far more viable, in that there are 6 possible values to a dice and just 2 for a coin or a let-off.

As I said - you'll almost certainly have to do a flip-coin experiment one hell of a lot of times before you get 500 heads and 500 tails out of 1000 flips.

The coin-toss experiment would converge to the expected value after a few hundred trials as well though I don't have a graphy ready which shows that. And you don't need strict equality of heads and tails for the law of large numbers to apply. Anyway I am not going waste any more time on this either.

 

[zaremba]

Die-rolls are hardly comparable to let-offs. A coin-toss is far more viable, in that there are 6 possible values to a dice and just 2 for a coin or a let-off.

As I said - you'll almost certainly have to do a flip-coin experiment one hell of a lot of times before you get 500 heads and 500 tails out of 1000 flips.

Another straw man bites the dust. No-one's talking about getting precisely the same number of heads as tails, as I think you know.

 

[Richard]

The coin-toss experiment would converge to the expected value after a few hundred trials as well though I don't have a graphy ready which shows that. And you don't need strict equality of heads and tails for the law of law large numbers to apply.

Well, if you were trying to argue that luck evens itself out in every case and every case was the same... yes, you would.

Look at it this way. You do the coin-flip-1,000-times experiment 100 times. Each of these experiments is equable to one player's career. While many of them will come fairly close to 500\500, it's very unlikely you'll get any that are exactly that, and it's also very unlikely you'll get any two cases which produce the exact same result (say, 468 heads and 532 tails). You will also probably get one or two very anomalaic cases (say, 406 heads and 594 tails).

What you are doing in the post above is basically akin to combining every delivery faced by every batsman into one whole, and having no individual cases.

 

[zaremba]

I'll just leave my original advice in the hands of zaremba and see if he spots anything he recognises.

I make no comment.

I will bow out of the "Sehwag's achievements are largely attributable to luck" debate at this stage because of its utter futility on so many levels.

 

[Mard]

i never said all of it is attributable to his luck. But he has been very lucky

 

[Richard]

I make no comment.

I will bow out of the "Sehwag's achievements are largely attributable to luck" debate at this stage because of its utter futility on so many levels.

The "Sehwag's achievements are largely attributable to luck" idea is not one argued by anyone. Merely "Sehwag has been more lucky than most batsmen".

 

[Ikki]

The "Sehwag's achievements are largely attributable to luck" idea is not one argued by anyone. Merely "Sehwag has been more lucky than most batsmen".

Care to prove that? Let's see a large sample of batsmen and let's see you find a fair way to measure luck.

Richard, stop being silly.

 

[Richard]

Care to prove that?

No, it'd involve a hell of a lot of effort I can't be arsed to put in. If people wish to bury their head in the sand and think I'm making it up, that's their choice.

Let's see a large sample of batsmen and let's see you find a fair way to measure luck.

Easy as, as I've said millions of times. Dropped catch, missed stumping, bad Umpiring decision. If there's any doubt, benefit of it goes to the batsman.

There are of course other smaller slices of luck (play-and-miss, shot in the air at catchable height to where there's no fielder in the infield, etc.) but these are not merely minor but almost intangible.

Richard, stop being silly.

I don't do silly. And you constantly saying I do does you little credit.

 

[Ikki]

No, it'd involve a hell of a lot of effort I can't be arsed to put in. If people wish to bury their head in the sand and think I'm making it up, that's their choice.

Easy as, as I've said millions of times. Dropped catch, missed stumping, bad Umpiring decision. If there's any doubt, benefit of it goes to the batsman.

There are of course other smaller slices of luck (play-and-miss, shot in the air at catchable height to where there's no fielder in the infield, etc.) but these are not merely minor but almost intangible.

I don't do silly. And you constantly saying I do does you little credit.

Considering you are someone who has the gall to accuse others of having bias, or saying that certain players are thought of superior to others because of the way they play - like Viv Richards - when they are not because of their career records, YOU are coming here and saying a batsman (where you have no proof) is lucky and others aren't.

Look, if it's your opinion that he is lucky...say it and let it go. The fact that you can't even prove your crackpot theories yet insist on them so incessantly...Aspergers syndrome indeed.

BTW, I remember you saying just the other week that there is no real luck and it evens out, and if it doesn't then it really isn't 'luck' or to something of that effect.

 

[Richard]

Considering you are someone who has the gall to accuse others of having bias, or saying that certain players are thought of superior to others because of the way they play - like Viv Richards - when they are not because of their career records, YOU are coming here and saying a batsman (where you have no proof) is lucky and others aren't.

Look, if it's your opinion that he is lucky...say it and let it go. The fact that you can't even prove your crackpot theories yet insist on them so incessantly...Aspergers syndrome indeed.

I believe you've been told to cut the "crackpot theories" stuff out? I'm also absolutely certain that equating AS to "crackpot" breaks forum rules, and not only that it's a revelation of exceptionally poor character.

I do have proof that Sehwag is unusually lucky BTW, but it's really only something I can look at - ie, my own memory bank. I can't be bothered making the effort to put it all down in writing, especially as it'll make roughly zero difference to anyone.

BTW, I remember you saying just the other week that there is no real luck and it evens out, and if it doesn't then it really isn't 'luck' or to something of that effect.

No, you remember something else which could be twisted into that. I've never said luck evens itself out, I've said it doesn't favour anyone, because it doesn't. To favour requires a consciousness. It does, as a result of its random nature, not get distributed evenly, however.

 

[zaremba]

I'm also absolutely certain that equating AS to "crackpot" breaks forum rules, and not only that it's a revelation of exceptionally poor character.

TBF I don't think that Ikki's post was equating AS to crackpot.

Although I do agree that taking the piss out of anyone on the basis of having Asperger's isn't appropriate, and there's a risk of this thread degenerating into precisely that.