The efficient market hypothesis assumes that all humans are rational and act in their own self-interest. However, humans are often irrational and self-destructing, through no fault of their own other than being human. I've got eight of the most common biases we can be aware of and actively prevent them from harming our financial health. I have sadly been the sufferer of every single one at some point. Anchoring bias Our purchase price often lends us to place an emotional anchor at that exact price. Whilst natural, many of us can be lulled into making sub-standard decisions because of the anchoring bias, for example many of us will know the feeling of waiting for the price to reach our breakeven price before selling, only to see the stock reach within a few pence of it and drop back, leaving us wishing we had sold. Another danger of the anchoring bias is in technical analysis. Whilst technical analysis does help investors spot key levels on the chart, it can lure us into placing too much emphasis on the levels and act not in accordance with our investment thesis. When we buy a stock, we have done so because we believe the current valuation offers upside and that it trades at a discount to its real value – by looking at resistance points on the charts we become tempted to sell and try to buy in cheaper. We may get lucky a few times doing this but often all we do is sabotage our investments. Unless the goal is to trade, technical analysis doesn’t always mix well with fundamental research. To combat the anchoring bias, we should ignore the price we paid for our shares, and to always focus on the price right now. Would we buy the stock now at its current price if we did not own it? If yes, then great; keep holding. But if the answer is no – you know what to do. Endowment bias The endowment bias is very similar to the anchoring bias, in that both focus on the purchase price, but the endowment bias differs in that we believe that the shares we own are better by the virtue of us owning them! This is, of course, nonsense, but we see it all the time in the housing market. Houses will often be priced well above the street’s average for sale price despite the house itself being unremarkable, yet the owners are convinced that their house should be priced higher than most of the houses in the street. Like the stock market, the housing market often finds its equilibrium point, and the overpricing is often ironed out as sellers revise their sale price downwards, but unlike the housing market the endowment bias in the stock market can be potentially costly. Holding onto stocks we should be selling, or holding onto the sector laggard despite the evidence showing there are more attractive stocks in the sector, can damage our portfolios. The classic example of the endowment effect was in a study from Kahnemann, Knetsch & Thaler, who gave participants a mug and measured the willingness to accept versus the willingness to pay of those who had not received the mug. They found that ownership of the mug demanded compensation almost double what new buyers were prepared to pay. Information bias We are constantly bombarded with new information on a daily basis, be it from the news, social media, bulletin boards, and even the company’s own Twitter feed. So, your investment has won a new contract? That’s good news, but if it was material and meant anything it would have been put out in an RNS announcement. The fact that it wasn’t clearly just means that it is just business as usual, and therefore offers us nothing that would either bolster or cause us to change our investment thesis. The problem we have as investors is that there is so much noise. Financial commentators can’t just say that the news doesn’t matter, because then they’d have nothing to talk about! So instead they come up with reasons for why the FTSE has ‘soared’ 2% that day, or why the Dow has ‘plunged’ 1%. Unfortunately, these financial commentators can never tell us before the event, so that we might be able to place a trade and make money, but they certainly don’t have any problems telling us why what happened came to happen. These shows and columns again seduce investors into making spur-of-the-moment decisions based on emotions, when history has shown us that we are probably best leaving our investments alone, unless we are given a strong reason to sell. Daily share price movements are of no interest to the long-term investor and as the saying goes – “those who stare at the tape all day will be sure to end up feeding it”. To avoid the information bias, we should switch off the noise and conduct frequent check-ups on our investments, but only to ensure nothing has gone wrong. Recency bias The tendency to overweight a piece of news’ importance in context of the overall story is the recency bias. We do this by easily remembering something that has occurred now or recently, compared to being able to recall or even place the same importance on an event that may have happened a while back. The problem here is that we may take small and trivial events and place more emphasis on those than an important event. A good example would be believing that the company winning a contract is a good sign, yet disregarding or even forgetting the profit warning a few weeks ago. A good method to beat the recency bias is to collect our thoughts and important events in a single place, that way when another piece of the investment puzzle is released, we can weigh it up and place it into context of the overall puzzle. Loss aversion The act of avoiding loss is one us humans are prone to naturally. We are much more likely to cut our winners (in order to massage our ego that we were right) and be risk averse whereas with losers we will be risk seeking and run the loser, or add to it, perhaps even when the investment case is deteriorating. Kahnemann and Taversky (1979) found that the pain of losing an amount is psychologically far greater, about twice as powerful, as winning the same amount. This explains why the free trial is so effective – it plays on the feeling of loss. It is also why penalties are far more motivating than rewards. Try it next time you need to motivate yourself, and you’ll see just how strong the feeling is. In order to defeat loss aversion we need to constantly train our brain to do what is unnatural. Going with the herd was once what was safe, and trusting your instincts got us out of danger of predators quickly, but in the investing world there are no place for such emotions. Holding onto losers in the hope that they will eventually come good is psychologically draining. Knowing what can kill our investment thesis and constantly being on guard looking out for that catalyst will save us plenty of both physical and psychological capital. Restraint bias This bias is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to control themselves and resist impulsive investment decisions. Almost all of us think that we shouldn’t commit large portions of our capital to a single stock lest we put ourselves at risk financially, but all of us will know the feeling when we find a certain stock that we’re so sure it’s a winner, and we’re tempted to steam in with a large position. The beauty of small and mid cap stocks is that if management do execute then there is plenty of upside. Rather than going all in at the start where the reward is highest (and also the risk), we should buy in small and add to our position once management begin to prove themselves. There is no rush and this allows us to follow the story objectively and let the investment case build strength and derisk itself. Gambler’s fallacy The gambler’s fallacy is very similar to the Hot Hand fallacy – believing that previous investments have a connection to them. This happens when one believes that because they’d had five losers in a row, they’re now ‘due’ a winner. Unfortunately, the reality is that all events are interdependent of each other – even when trading in the same stock. The market doesn’t care how many losers you’ve had, and the market doesn’t take into account a ‘hot hand’ either, which is when one believes that after a string of winning positions or trades that they’re on a ‘streak’. Be aware that when we are at our most confident, that is when we are at our most vulnerable. The market will be ready to humble us in a big way should our egos get too big. Icarus, after all, flew far too close to the sun. Sunk cost bias Sunk cost is the notion of believing that after investing, we must continue to invest even because we have already invested. To protect against sunk cost, we must ask ourselves if we would buy that same stock as the price it is now, if we didn’t hold it. Sunk cost has been used to explain the endowment effect, but another effect of the sunk cost bias is that it prevents funds from being used elsewhere. Chasing a loser may mean missing out on a big winner! The opportunity cost can be far in excess of the sunk costs already deployed, and though it can never be calculated, it only takes one big winner that we miss because we were laden with something we didn’t much want to hammer that point home. Key takeaways
Anchoring bias – ignore the price we paid for our shares
Endowment bias – recognise that we are inherently placing a value higher than the market by the single virtue of us owning the stock
Information bias – be careful of market noise as it can lure us into action
Recency bias – collect information and clearly write down the investment case
Loss aversion – remember that every big loss started as a small loss; have a plan for when we are getting out
Restraint bias – instead of going in large at the start buy small and allow management to prove their worth to you
Gambler’s fallacy – the market doesn’t care about previous actions; previous actions are not linked
Sunk cost bias – we don’t need to be right, and if we wouldn’t buy at the current price if we didn’t own the stock, then we should think about cutting the loss
Why you can be intellectual but still be very wrong on hard facts.
I'd like to show an example on biases I've encountered while having fun drawing TA charts during the lockdown. In some cases like Indonesia's COVID19 curve for example, Technical Analysis (TA) and a properly done predictive analytics model do converge, as In they gave out the same results, so I choose to display my model in TA style for the lulz. Cognitive biases that were encountered : confirmation bias, continued influence effect, curse of knowledge,Dunning–Kruger effect,Hindsight bias Social biases : Authority bias, halo effect, asymetric insight, shared information bias. My tendency and this sub is to criticize the general Indonesian population on the usually news article related silly believes, behaviours and practices (curse of knowledge) ,(Naive Realism). Which ironically is also very heavy in here. /indonesia have a youngish mid-up tech minded demographic, with many that study/work in engineering/IT. So redditors have been accustomed to think/assume they are smarter then the average population(they use more logical reasoning) but as I will show this comes with biases as well. As an example last month this sub voted for Singapore's SUTD Machine Learning SIR model as the COVID19 prediction model they believe the most. https://www.reddit.com/indonesia/comments/gedg4s/which_covid19_epidemic_model_on_indonesia_do_you/ (Sadly my funny & cool looking charts only came at number 3 on that vote) That model even though it has shown zero predictive value triggered all the cognitive&social biases for /indonesia demographic - came from singapore (ultimate attribution error) - from a reputable university (Authority bias) - by a charismatic professor and grad student working with MIT and other top world institutions. (halo effect) - Use all the right hot trigger words, machine learning, SIR, etc. (confirmation bias, shared information bias) It made headline news in Indonesia's media. As I've pointed out it is silliness trying to use a base deterministic SIR model underneath non linear kernels in neural networks to try to predict a non stationary time series. Their model which was continuously updated on new infection data, predicted April 19 as the peak using May's data, up to May 15th. Here is a screenshot before they "internalized" the model. https://ibb.co/8MnP4xM Needless to say this diverged so hard from reality and the model have been "internalized" which is corporate speak for our model sucks so bad that we are ashamed to publish it. https://ddi.sutd.edu.sg/ As compared to my tinfoil prediction that have been very accurate so far, track record here : https://www.reddit.com/indonesia/comments/guogj8/covid19_megathread_part_2/ft937wg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x and don't forget my psuedo sciency meme laden TA chart https://www.reddit.com/indonesia/comments/gnvtgl/new_indicators_indonesia_covid19_daily_infection/ https://www.reddit.com/indonesia/comments/gtw82n/clarifying_what_i_think_on_the_covid19_epidemic/ However because i wear a tinfoil hat and draws TA chart+memes ppl think I'm an OP warnet or something, even a few redditors think they can do better. Dunning–Kruger effect,Hard–easy effect https://www.reddit.com/indonesia/comments/guogj8/covid19_megathread_part_2/ft9mw14?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x (Baader–Meinhof phenomenon, Gambler's fallacy) https://www.reddit.com/indonesia/comments/guogj8/covid19_megathread_part_2/ftcpcua?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x And even after proven wrong, they refuse to acknowledge any merit in my model / prediction so far because it is so meme ladden and doesn't fit into their world view (Semmelweis reflex) If I had presented my model in a more sane and structured way, called it machine learning, neural nets, genetic algorithm, etc... it probably would have won over many redditors, but alas where's the fun in that and I still have lot's of time to fill in this pandemic. Edit 1 : Thanks for the award kind stranger. As a reward, you get the special Safe & Social Award icon on your submission. Very dapper. Want to say thanks to your mysterious benefactor? Reply to this message. You will find out their username if they choose to reply back. This post was meant to raise awareness in the importance of psychology&social sciences for techie redditors. Don't repeat my experience here : https://www.reddit.com/indonesia/comments/gze24v/why_you_can_be_intellectual_but_still_be_very/ftfy180?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
bathrobeDFS - Daily Analysis for January 7th and Review of January 6th
bathrobeDFS - Daily Analysis for January 7th and Review of January 6th Hello, everyone! bathrobeDFS here with your daily basketball article. First, I will breakdown my lineup for yesterday’s main slate. Then I will go over tonight’s slate from the perspective of a one lineup player on Draftkings. If you like this information, I provide additional updates, information, and stats on my twitter @bathrobeDFS (I was also asked to start a patreon and venmo and are at the same name). Feel free to throw me a follow cause it’s much easier and more timely to provide updates over that medium. Yesterday In Review: Lineup- EARLY SLATE
Name
Price
DKP
Value
Dunn
6900
34
4.9x
LaVine
6700
35
5.2x
Isaac
3700
6.75
1.8x
Tolliver
3500
3.75
1.1x
Towns
10300
67.5
6.6x
KCP
5300
12
2.3x
Saric
4100
10.25
2.5x
Vuc
9500
63
6.6x
Total
50000
232.25
4.645x
LATE SLATE
Name
Price
DKP
Value
Proj Own
Real Own
Diff
Kemba
9200
38.75
4.2x
25%
22.6%
2.4
Booker
8900
11
1.2x
25%
32.4%
7.4
Justise
6900
25.25
3.7x
12.5%
14.8%
2.3
Sabonis
6800
39.25
5.8x
15%
42.5%
27.5
Biyombo
3400
19
5.6x
52.5%
53.5%
1
Lowry
7000
34.75
5x
15%
10.7%
4.3
O’Quinn
3000
29.75
9.9x
0%
10.6%
10.6
Wade
4800
24.5
5.1x
10%
17.5%
7.5
Total
50000
222.25
4.445x
Analysis- I am starting to get whatever my wife and son had, so I am going to keep this brief today. Kemba was my play of the day, and I wanted to run it back with Booker. Of course they both fucked me again (Kemba with underperforming, Booker with injury). I keep banking on people playing up to their skill level/matchup, regardless of cold/hot streaks (of them or teammates) because not doing that is basically recency bias. However, I think that has cost me this last week. The people that have hurt me, from a lineup perspective, are people who were in great spots, who hadn’t been performing lately (for no discernable reason). I thought a lot about this today and I came to the conclusion that I should learn the Mike Conley lesson. If you don’t know what I mean, let me explain - there was about a week and a half where Conley was in great matchups and not performing up to standards. One game he put up a goose egg. It was sad and embarrassing. Then the news came out that he had injured himself at the beginning of that week and half and been playing injured and physically limited. No one had reported it. No one had even mentioned it. All of a sudden, they were discussing it as if it was common knowledge among the team, but had kept it a secret from the media and, therefore, us. So learn the Mike Conley Lesson with me- sometimes recent performance is noise, sometimes it’s a window into a problem (physical or personal) that hasn’t been reported anywhere. If a dud turns into a string of duds, it may be smarter to get off and let them beat you then to keep throwing good money after bad (gambler’s fallacy AND sunk cost fallacy there). When you face a losing streak, it’s important to take a step back and try to analyze what you could be doing wrong. It happens to everyone, and, just like anything else, it is an invaluable tool to help yourself learn. Hopefully my failures can help you learn as well, and prevent those mistakes in the future! Enough of that, though. Let’s move on. Next I had locked in Justise going against Trae and Biyombo once he got the official start. Next, once Lowry was declared in, and starting, I knew I wanted to take a chance on him, so I pivoted off of Siakam. I also grabbed Sabonis and O’Quinn when Turner was declared out. That left me exactly 4800 left. I mentioned how much I liked Wade yesterday in this matchup against ATL, so i locked him in and got back to laying down. The Daily Slate: Matchup Specific Ceiling (MSC) Pick of the Day Matchup Specific Ceiling is a “quasi-metric” I use to make decisions. If you haven’t read my explanation, please check out this link right here The explanation begins in the “injury/lineup news” section about halfway down. In this section, I will pick the player who has fewest factors preventing him from reaching his ceiling, considering spread, pace, O/U, defense, usage, teammate health, and other factors. Vuc - There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what this section is about. I understand why, and it is my fault. It’s a concept I have a hard time explaining, so it can create false impressions or incorrect expectations. This is not about who I think will give you the most value, or the most bang for your buck. This is not the person who has the easiest matchup, or has the highest usage, or is going against the worst defense. It’s ALL of those. This is about how many barriers there are to someone reaching their ceiling. That is already a statistic that favors the more expensive player (since the ability to reach one’s ceiling would be strongly correlated to USG rate, and the higher the USG rate, the more expensive the player generally). This section asks the question- is the most expensive player the one with the best chance to hit their ceiling, or is there someone further down that merits our attention today. Let’s say we assume a star has a 1% chance of hitting his ceiling on any given night. This is a section trying to ascertain who on the slate is going to be closest to the 1%. Who has had that % fall off the least? Part of that is a function of usage. Can someone priced 5k who takes 10 shots a game reach ceiling? I mean, I guess so. But does that person have even remotely close to the same 1% ceiling chance as someone who takes 25 shots a game? I don’t think so. Again, this is about who has the highest % chance of hitting their ceiling. That means, barring some kind of injury (for example, If Kyrie goes down, Rozier could be here at far cheaper a price than most superstars), the people who are at the top of the USG, the people who are getting the shots, and the people who have, at least, double-double upside every single game are going to be the ones in this section. If you want to think of it as “which high priced guy should I play?” you can, although you should be aware that it could be anyone, anywhere on the price spectrum, depending on game situation. So let’s get to it. As much as I like Harden this game (and every game without CP3 and Gordon), I have to give the edge to Vuc today (though I’ll see if I can get both in). Just a reminder that SAC is the team that let Nurkic get the 20/20 5x5, so this is certainly one of the matchups that will not reduce a player’s chance to hit their ceiling. While still terrible, the LAC C defense is better than that of the Kings, and Vuc had 11 rebounds and 7 points 10 minutes into the first quarter yesterday. He finished with slightly less than normal run (due to blowout) of 32 minutes, where he put up 63 DKP, including 16 points on 7-17 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and 8 assists. With the highest O/U on the slate (as of now) at 224, and a close spread of SAC -5, Vuc has a good chance to exceed yesterday’s performance. Another bonus factor, the Magic are a slower team this year who got the matchup against the 8th ranked Clippers yesterday. Today they are going against the 2nd ranked Kings. Like most slates, this is going to be a choice you have to make at the top: Harden, Brow, Giannis, Jokic, Vuc, and even Kyrie. As incredible as they all are, Vuc has shown his ability to get 80+DKP in the right matchup and, given the discount and the huge bonus he gets from facing the Kings, Vuc will be my top guy tonight. Situations to take advantage of (in no particular order):
Derrick White - I talked about White (5000) a couple times over the past week, and he is in a hell of a spot again tonight. Going against one of the worst defensive PGs in the NBA, Reggie Jackson, and continuing to get usage and production, White’s price continues to rise too slowly for the role he’s grown into here. On 12/22, White reached a low price of 3700. Since then, he has put up 25.75, 20.25, 34, 31.25, 36.75, 28, and 27.5 DKP. He has reached at least 5x value in all but one game, and now he gets to go against the best position at which to attack Detroit. Like the best and safest players, White is also someone who plays solid defense, working his way up to 9th highest starting PG in DRPM which increases his chance of providing other counting stats. If this game blows out (as most SA games do), he will still get nearly 30 minutes and around 5x+. If this game stays close (as it’s projected to), White could see minutes in the mid-30s and absolutely smash in this spot.
Cheap Pistons - SA did not start off this season playing their best D, but that has all changed the past month where the Spurs are at the top of defensive rankings. This means that, although the prices on Griffin (8500) and Drummond (8100) are 1000 under where they will be in a week, they are still too expensive for me given the matchup. However, the next most expensive Piston is RJax (4700) who, if you do the math, is 3400 cheaper than Andre. I don’t like playing him often, but he is someone who can give you almost 40 DKP if everything goes right and his price has fallen enough he needs to be kept in consideration. He will be going against the good D of White, but 4700 for close to 40 minutes if this game stays close is too enticing to rule out. The 4th most expensive player on the pistons is Bullock (3700) who just put up 27.25 DKP in 39 minutes and saw his price fall from 3900. Bruce Brown (3400) is the 5th most expensive (active) Piston, and he is coming off a 35 minute, 24.25 DKP performance. Barring any serious news, this looks to be one of the best spots from which to draw your punts today. If you can find starters (and people that get 30 minutes) under 4k, they need to be considered. Not added to your pool, but looked at to see if recent production, minutes, and ceiling says it’s worth it.
Al Horford/Ed Davis - In his last game Horford (5600) went against Deandre Jordan, the #1 C in the NBA in DRPM and, in just 25 minutes of limited run, put up 36.5 DKP at 6000. While we should still expect him to get a limited run in the upper 20s, he is also going against the worst-in-the-NBA C defense of the Nets. While we have to watch out for the limited minutes, he easily has the ability, in this matchup, to get 40+DKP if given the chance to get to 30. What’s more, since this game is expected to blow out anyway, we shouldn’t really expect more than the upper 20s in minutes from any of the Celtics. On the other side of this game, while RHJ remains out, I am going to keep going to Ed Davis (3600) who still hasn’t been priced up for the role he’s getting. Especially in a game that is expected to blow out, which would give Davis extra minutes, the 3600 price tag for someone who can get you 30+ DKP just isn’t enough. He got 24 minutes against the Bulls yesterday, and put up 7 points and 13 rebounds.
Capela - Over the last few games, with Gordon out, we have seen Capela (7500) fill in admirably as Harden’s 2nd option (behind Harden). In the OT loss to GS, Capela got 46 minutes and a great PPM, putting up 63.75 DKP in that time. His price for that game was 6900 and shot up to 7800 for Saturday’s game against Portland. Capela responded by reaching value and thensome, getting 47.25 DKP in 34 minutes against the good defense of Nurkic. Of course, getting 6x value wasn’t enough and Capela’s price has fallen 300 for today’s game. I know the matchup with Jokic is tough, but I also know that 7500 isn’t enough for someone who’s been producing at these levels, in a game with a spread of only HOU -1.
Millsap/Harris - Both players are having their minutes ramped up, on the mend from injuries. Both have been coming off the bench and have seen their minutes climb to the high 20s. It is certainly possible, in this matchup, both are put back in the starting lineup and given a normal minutes allotment in the 30s. If they are given the extra run Millsap (5400) and Harris (5000) become two of the best plays on the slate. Even if they are not given the starters slot, they both put up nearly 40 DKP in the last game and would certainly be in that position again, even if they only get minutes in the high 20s (though I don’t expect it to be this limited). On top of that, PF is, by far, the best way to attack Houston giving Millsap a boost, again, regardless of the starting/minutes situation.
Raul Neto - This game has one of the highest totals on the slate, 222.5, and a close enough spread of MIL -5.5. It also has one of those things I love- when a team has a glaring weakness against one position, and the person on the other team with the highest usage plays that position. In this case, Donovan (7400) gets to go against the very bad SG defense of the Bucks. However, his price keeps rising, and his production really hasn’t. In his last game, he got 47.25 DKP in 38 minutes due to the fact Rubio was banged up and they were on the 2nd game of a back-to-back and Exum got injured. This was the most minutes and DKP Mitchell had gotten since 12/17 against the Rockets. I think Mitchell has a decent chance for 40-45 DKP this game (which puts him at about 6x), but I also think he has a decent chance of finishing with 25-35, as he has been recently, and will totally mess you up. That is the risk you take with someone who is so scoring dependent. The one person I like, though, is Neto (3000) who will be playing all the backup PG minutes he is allowed (assume around 20) and is a great bet to get to 20+ DKP in this expanded role. 21 DKP is already 7x value, and he will let you fit in whatever star you want to play today.
Grizzlies - I think I am still learning my Mike Conley (7500) lesson, and will have a hard time playing him until I see something that says his shoulder issue is behind him. Or else I view him as a very risky play who provides upside for around 45-50 DKP. He is, however, the person on this team with the highest USG, and he is in the best position (PG) at which to attack NO. Memphis is also in an extreme pace up spot against the 5th ranked Pels (if the fact the O/U is over 210 wasn’t clue enough). Everything points to Conley having a great game today, but I will continue to hold off, though I totally understand if you don't want to (especially at what will be like 2% ownership). Someone who I have come to like in pace up games for Memphis is Kyle Anderson (5200) who will also be attacking the Pelicans from a position of strength. Like a lot of folks that can produce across the spectrum, his floor here should be just under 5x, with the possibility of getting into the 45-50 DKP range that we would love from Mike Conley. For me, I will take the 2300 savings and roll with Anderson today.
Lakers/Mavs - The only game on the slate without an O/U yet, as we wait to hear whether Kuzma has any chance of playing, I firmly expect this to be the highest O/U today by some margin, and, if Kuzma plays, it should have a close spread as well. The Brunson explosion should be contained to one game, with Barea and Harris coming back tonight. Regardless of that, Doncic (7700) has gone through a stretch of slow teams, good defenses, and blow outs that have kept his minutes in check and his scores right under the 5x value mark. If this game manages to stay close, with how fast the Lakers play, and with such poor D without Lebron, Doncic would be one of the best plays on the slate. If he finally gets back to a minute total in the high 30s, he could easily get you 50+DKP and is a daily threat of a triple double (less so with Smith, but still a threat), Jordan (6100) is also incredibly underpriced for someone who will see the D of either McGee or Zubac for a majority of this game. He should be the top rebounder of the day today, and I don’t know if anyone besides Vuc can even get close to him here. No one else on the Mavs is even close to expensive enough in this matchup that they can’t be considered. On the other side, the Mavs can be best attacked by guards, especially wing shooters. This means my favorite play for the Lakers are Josh Hart (5800) who i would consider the most proficient of the guards at taking 3s (and he also takes the most). This would be followed by Lonzo (7000) who doesn’t always take a ton of 3s, but will when the situation calls for it (and it will tonight). If Kuzma is out, KCP (5700) who shat the bed yesterday afternoon, is also someone who put up 12 3s a couple days ago against the Knicks, and someone who should enter your player pool.
The Rest of ORL/SAC - As much as I love Vuc, every one of these starters is underpriced for a matchup against the Kings (and just how many extra possessions they are going to get). While I won’t be prioritizing Gordon (6700) and Fournier (5700) they will be fine pivots off Vuc if you want to go that way. The one player everyone should be looking at, though, is DJ Augustin (4600) who, I feel the need to remind you, is going to be getting starters minutes against the KINGS at only 4600. So, I mean, don’t overthink that. Similarly, the entire Kings roster is drastically underpriced, even considering the slow pace and solid D of ORL. The best place to attack SAC, by far, is at the SG position. That means Hield (7100) is one of my favorite plays of the day as well. He will be the first person I lock in to run back Vuc. I am still worried about Fox (6900)’s shoulder injury, and he has not been playing like someone that was priced at 8400 just a few games ago. WCS (5700), though, is in a position I don’t understand. He was priced at 7200 three games ago. Granted, he had 2 bad games in a row, but he responded by getting 44.25 DKP last game in a very tough matchup against Dray Green at a price of 6000. Of course, DK decides to lower his price to a level where 27.5 DKP is enough for him to hit 5x value. Pardon my French, but that’s “le” fucking insane. Similarly, Bogdanovic (5300) and Bjelica (4800) have seen price drops, even though they have both been producing well above these levels. Granted, some extra production will fall to them if Shumpert and Bagley are out again, but, even if everyone on this roster is healthy, Bogdan and Bjelica are priced far too cheap.
Situations to be careful of(in no particular order):
The New Orleans TooManyCooks?? - I fear, with the return of Elf Payton (6100), the usage and production on the Pelicans is going to be spread thinner than we would like. Brow (11600) was already 22nd in USG, Jrue (7900) was 32nd, and Julius Randle (8300) was 36th. Now Elf, who will do a majority of the ballhandling (which will crash Jrue’s usage and price), will also take around 15 shots a game. As I have explained, DFS production is a zero-sum game. Every productive piece you add takes away production from everyone else. This would require a price adjustment for all parties, which has not happened (much like Durant has come down into the 9000s now with Curry back). There are also a couple of other zero-sum things that I want to discuss in relation to the Grizzlies. The Grizzlies have, and allow, the fewest possessions per game which reduces how many point-getting opportunities you will have. They allow the fewest Field Goal Attempts, 81.1, a game. The next closest team is the Rockets, who allow 85.4. Much like Harden’s usage from a couple days ago, this is a Ruthian difference. The difference between the Grizz and Rockets is the same as the difference between the Rockets and the Wolves/Raptors who are tied for 18th. So, again, the gap between 1st and 2nd is the same as the gap between 2nd and 18th. That is less FGA everyone on your team can take, which is less points, assists, and rebounds everyone can be expected to get. Again, zero-sum as well because all of those things are now going to be spread out among 4 people. I don’t know if DK considers these prices a discount, but I sure as shit do not and, until they start taking this kind of stuff into account, it is going to be exceedingly hard to play anyone against the Grizzlies. Payton would have to get 30.5 DKP just to reach 5x tonight, Jrue 39.5 DKP, Randle 41.5 DKP, and Brow 58 DKP. I don’t think all of them will fall below the 5x mark, but in a TooManyCooks situation, against the Grizz, I just can’t go here.
Knicks vs Blazers - There are a couple of things with this game. First, the Knicks coach sucks, both in real life, and for DFS players. While we can try to assume playing time based on historical data, Fizdale is one of the coaches that will randomly pop people in and play whoever for however many minutes he wants. This means, apart from Vonleh (6300), I am far too wary of the price of anyone here except for punts, given the spread on this game is POR -11.5. As far as those punts go, I like Dotson (3400) and Lee (3100) since I can’t stomach playing Burke (3200) anymore. On the other side, Nurkic (8000) isn’t priced high enough for even 30 blown out minutes against these Knicks and their Center “defense”. If this game manages to stay close somehow, Nurkic is going to be one of the top raw point producers on this slate. And even if he only gets 30 minutes, it is certainly possible for him to get 6x (as he did his last game). Everyone else is priced too high for the blowout, so if you want to take a punt on a Seth Curry (3400) or Collins (3300), I would say go for it. Just make sure that, when picking punts, it’s people who get backup minutes AND blowout run, or you’re just hoping for extreme PPM production in one quarter of action.
Situations to monitor:
Harden/Giannis/Jokic - I know Harden (12000) is incredibly expensive. I know he will be facing a team that has great guard defense (especially if Harris is starting again). But matchup doesn’t matter when Harden is handling the ball and CP3 and Gordon are out. There is simply no one that can handle him. With this game’s projected spread of HOU-1, the only barriers to Harden today are price and ownership. Second, I know that Giannis (11400) is the other contender for MVP this year, and he gets the easiest individual matchup on the Jazz (against Favors). This game also features the 2nd highest line (so far), and a decent spread of MIL -5.5, so, again, price and ownership are the only barriers here. Lastly Jokic (10000) comes at a significant discount from the other 2, with a lower projection and ceiling, but a better matchup against the bad D of Capela. With Vuc as my first lock today, and none of these 3 stars standing out (due to pricing, matchup, and other factors) I am going to treat these 3 as ownership plays. This means I will be looking out for who everyone is talking about, who people say are the best plays, and how people have everyone projected (in terms of ownership). If Harden is chalk, I would get Giannis in. If Giannis is chalk, and Harden is underowned (much less likely), I will try to get Harden in there. If both Giannis and Harden prove to have about equal (and high) ownership, I will fill my UTIL spot with Jokic and build around that. If all 3 of them prove to be the most popular plays of the day, I will build a balanced lineup and try to get off all 3. While all of these guys can succeed today (as ever), there are plenty of avenues to not meeting value for their prices, and I will be approaching them with caution and to differentiate today.
Well, it’s a new week and the hardest slate I’ve seen in some time. Not that it won’t be fun, and that there’s not some great players in great spots with great prices. I just expect this to be a much trickier slate to figure out and to get our finger around. Let’s see where the injury news leads us. Hopefully to the top of the leaderboards tomorrow. I hope to see you there.
Opinion: Netmarble should get out ahead of the inevitable loot box fallout
Edit: Please note that this was posted the day BEFORE Netmarble released patch 3.6.0 which included lootbox-based biometrics. Anyone who has been paying attention to the gaming world knows that there is a lot of controversy around 'loot boxes' in the current mainstream media. For example, Belgium has determined they are gambling: http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2017/11/21/belgium-finished-loot-box-investigation-deemed-gambling/ Hawaiian legislators have spoken out: https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/hawaii-wants-to-fight-the-predatory-behavior-of-loot-boxes/ And it's not just Battlefront II that is in the spotlight. Companies like Valve and Blizzard are also being called out over "gambling" practices within their games. Anecdotally, just reading the comments section you will see many stories of gamers experiencing real life hardship as a result of their own or friend/family member's addiction. On the flipside, others don't consider loot boxes to be gambling, as the player is always guaranteed a reward, even if it's content the player doesn't care about (see: ESRB). This does appear to be counter to true gambling like slot machines, where the player gets nothing upon failure. As a gaming "vet", I have seen this gradual change happen, both in the mature console/PC world, and even worse in the relatively new mobile gaming world. Future Fight has always included heavy RNG elements in its gameplay and mechanics, as well as RNG-based 'gambling' which consumes premium or real world currency. In the end, even if it's not true "gambling" like in a casino, gaming companies understand psychological elements like Gambler's Ruin and Sunk Cost Fallacy, and exploit them to make money wherever possible. Recently, however, it seems like NM has doubled down on loot boxes. Placing several "best of breed" cards and obelisks behind a paywall is especially insidious in my opinion. These are completely new classifications (CTPs and p-cards) that didn't exist before, and some can only be acquired with premium currency. Pundits like Cynicalex have spoken out about this, but at the same time throw tens of thousands of crystals into "testing" the mechanics. The overwhelming result is: it's not worth it. And yet, we all know about the dangers of gambling. There are cautionary tales everywhere. Countless posts on Reddit, articles in the media, movies and books illustrating the steady decline of gamblers. But we still want to do it... which is the problem. Furthermore, this game is clearly marketed and totally suitable for most children, who almost certainly do not understand the dangers of periodic dopamine hits from spending their parents' money (at best) and developing a lasting problem (at worst). It is my opinion that Netmarble should start making efforts to reduce loot boxes ahead of the inevitable backlash, which will stem from both gamers and from legal precedent. Regardless of whether you think these practices are actually gambling, I believe the gaming industry will continue to reject these practices like they did with Shadow of War, FIFA, and Battlefront II. How NM profits best is unknown to me, but from the outside they must be making good money from other methods. A lot of people initially complained about the cost of Magneto, but you knew what you were getting with your 6600 crystals, and it opened the door for the best character in the game. Uniforms are very well received and must be cash cows for NM- assuming they keep making them worthwhile- people will keep buying them. The oldschool crystal/character packs sold out almost instantly when people actually thought they were getting a deal. In the end, I think NM could proactively retrofit their RNG-based sales with any number of other methods and would still be successful. Thoughts? NOV/28 EDIT: It looks like NM has not been reading the news and has TRIPLED down in their 3.6 update, placing new characters behind a RNG loot box. The player backlash is immense judging from the subreddit and Mobirum boards. Unfortunately, only a minority of the playerbase will check these sources, and many ignorant players will fall into the loot box trap. This will further reinforce the moneymaking decisions behind this. It's imperative that all 'woke' players boycott this new scheme. Patch notes: http://www.mobirum.com/article/detail?cafeId=futurefight_en&bbsId=75&id=978663 Boycott (most upvoted post in this subreddit history): https://www.reddit.com/future_fight/comments/7g2iwj/boycott_update_36/
Looking at the roadmap Bungie released for the next few months, I couldn’t help noticing two words standing out at the September update: Weapon Randomization. While this is a bit vague and isn’t a 100% confirmation, a reasonable guess would be that Bungie is considering bringing back random rolls to Destiny. This is something that part of the community has been demanding, very vocally and visibly, and it’s a seemingly easy way to fix the endless complaints about the “lack of endgame content”. That being said, I’m dreading the thought that random rolls might become a thing again, and I think it’s going to take away more than it adds to the game. Before we can really get into why bringing random rolls back is a bad idea, we need to acknowledge why people want them back in the first place. The big reason: “god rolls”. That sweet, perfect combination of perks on a specific weapon that make it the gamebreaker in PvP, PvE, or both. With some time, investment, and luck, you can go from being a total chump at the bottom to the top of the scoreboard. Besides, everyone loves that rush of finally hitting the jackpot and getting the god roll weapon they’ve been putting so much effort into getting. The problem with all of this? It’s based on a massive error in thinking. Specifically, an error about how probability works. An example will help illustrate the point: Say you have a bowl of fruit with 6 apples and 2 oranges. You are asked to pick a fruit, at random, without looking. Because you have a higher chance (75%) of getting an apple versus an orange (25%), you end up getting an apple. You are then asked to draw again; the bowl only has 5 apples and 2 oranges, and, every time you draw without getting an orange, the chance you get the orange next increases until that’s all that’s left. Whether they admit it or not, this is how people think random rolls will work: that they will, eventually, get that god roll, that it’s guaranteed so long as they put the time in. Obviously, however, that’s not how random rolls work. Rather, that’s more like if, every time we drew from the fruit bowl, whatever we took was immediately replaced, meaning we were always drawing from a bowl of 6 apples and 2 oranges. No matter how many times you draw, the probability remains the same. The chance of getting an orange does not go up every time you draw; there is even a chance that you will never draw an orange. You might think “No, if I keep drawing, eventually I’ll get it, what are the chances that in 100 pulls I never get an orange (god roll)?” Honestly, pretty low, but not non-existent. No imagine how much that chance increases in a bowl of 99 apples to 1 orange, or 999 apples to 1 orange. You might contend that this is unrealistic; you remember friends who got the god roll, streamers who got it, maybe even you got it. But that is a little problem called “survivorship bias”; explained roughly, the only ones who tell stories, the stories that get passed around, are the stories of those who “survive”. The news is more than happy to interview and talk about the one guy who wins the lottery, rather than the millions of people who bought several tickets and got virtually nothing. Odds are, the vast majority of players will never see that special roll, no matter how much they grind. Some have even suggested this is part of why people want them back; if they get the god roll, they know that luck just gave them something few others can match or counter, letting them lord over other players without needing to actually putting effort into improvement. Perhaps someone might counterargue that random rolls will make getting duplicates more interesting; maybe the new one has perks that are better than the one I already have?! After all, one of the major complaints that’s plagued the game so far is that people feel they get useless duplicates too often. This problem ignores the probability issue: even after you get that gun with the perks you always wanted, you’re still going to keep getting useless duplicates of it. That’s how the random reward system works. Whether weapon perks are set in stone or random has zero impact on the possibility of you getting an unwanted duplicate after you’ve already collected what you want. The only fix for the issue of “duplicate loot” is to actually reduce what randomness exists in the game, not expand it. Despite this reasoning, supporters might still contend that the randomization introduces an element of “fun”. It makes it all the more exciting to finally, against the odds, get that perfect roll, especially after investing so much time and energy and going through numerous failures. But, as we just covered, that hit may never come. In fact, it’s fair to say that players experience more boredom and frustration than anything else trying to get that perfect random roll, only able to have actual fun months or years after they started their grind. This introduces the possibility of a worse problem arising than just frustrated players. Players with some level of interest in gambling, or who only grind activities they enjoy, will persist through the tedium just fine. What about everyone else, the average person who picks up the game? What do they do when they persistently don’t get what they’re looking for? I think it will look like I experienced with OoC and Season 2, where it took a month-and-a-half for me to get the one drop I needed to get a character from 334 to 335. As soon as I got that powerful drop, I put the game down from the end of January to mid-April because I was so exasperated with the grind. Activities that I had previously enjoyed, such as the raid and Crucible, had been degraded into chores with no promise of reward, and it wasn’t until we got 6v6 Iron Banner that I thought the game looked interesting again. This is exactly what I think will happen to the player base if random rolls are reintroduced; people will get so bored and frustrated trying to get “the best roll” that they will eventually just stop playing, or only play intermittently. It might sound like I’m unreasonably generalizing a personal experience, but this has actually been demonstrated as a psychological principle. Increasing external rewards shift motivation outward; they cause activities to cease being seen as interesting in their own right but only worthwhile for the supposed benefit. As you may have already figured, god rolls are an obvious external motivator, a holy grail for all of us to chase after. They will poison every activity in the game; all people will come to care about is if they got that perfect drop, and if they don’t get it they will feel like they are wasting their time. It will completely undermine the gameplay and lore the random rolls are meant to support (it could even be argued this already happened with D1, as players became more obsessed with the gun gambling than the gun play). This is where Bungie needs to start caring about the issue, because this is where sales get effected. People who become disillusioned and drop off do not encourage friends to get the game, do not make more microtransctions, and may not be motivated to buy or even hear about DLC when it’s released. The least I talked about Destiny 2 was during the hiatus I took after the OoC grind was over. I’m worried Bungie will lose a fair amount of money on the franchise in this way, which will threaten the long-term survival of the franchise. Now, you might respond “but they will keep all the players who like random rolls, who will also stop complaining and dissuading people from buying the game and other new content in that way”. Yes, they will keep the players who are either gamblers or who are so in love with the franchise that they would have kept up with the game even if D1-style random rolls never returned (complaining all the way, but still coming along). Because the odds are, no one new is going to buy the game when the big advertisement is “Randomly rolled weapon perks!” People are going to buy a game (and its DLC) because they are reassured by others that it has quality gameplay and rewarding content (lore, exotic weapons, cool boss fights, etc). I would say that between the “Go Fast” update and the Warmind expansion, D2 has both things right now; I haven’t had this much fun on the game since it first released. On the note of Warmind, I think one of the best design decisions about it is how it handled its endgame grinds. You’ve got multiple activities, some of which are very high-level, that offer unique and interesting rewards (like the Sleeper or the Worldline), and even have little micro-rewards along the way (the lore, new legendary weapons, etc.). This is, for the most part, meaningful content, and the grinds are rewarding because you actually know there’s something good at the end of it and you have a lot of ways to see and feel yourself progressing. Random rolls don’t do that; they are a meaningless, artificial endgame extension with no guaranteed reward. It doesn’t stimulate curiosity and interest, it just capitalizes on addictive psychologies and hopes the force of habit keeps people going. Going back to this would be a shame, as with the game being an FPS RPG, the focus and draw should come from the lore and gameplay, not from satisfying a gambling itch. I feel I should add that I know that, for both players and Bungie, the development of D2 in this last year has been frustrating and exhausting. With every change, the company tried to give players what they wanted, and then another side of the fanbase started screaming at them because it wasn’t what they wanted, and accused them of ruining the game. I’ve been impressed that Bungie has stuck with the project and kept trying to make it work even after a lot of folks and the media have made it their personal hobby to rip the game to shreds and stomp on it. That’s not my intention; rather, I feel like the game has made great strides in the last couple of months, and I’m worried about it now taking a step backward that’s going to hurt everyone (even those who think they want the game to go that direction). Hence, if the announcement does mean that the company is going to bring back random rolls, I'm hoping that they are still open to reconsidering that decision (or, at least, that they are planning to only bring it back in a limited fashion and balance the competing demands from the other side of the fence). To be honest, I’m probably one of the folks who will stick around either way (assuming life doesn’t take away my game time). The catch will be that continuing to enjoy the game will depend on if I am able to keep playing well without worrying about god rolls. TL;DR Random rolls, if brought back, will negatively impact D2 and its playerbase. It will make the grind less rewarding and hurt the long-term profitably and survival of the franchise. Because psychology. Unless the author is completely wrong, in which case, cheers! EDIT: I’m noticing two common counter-arguments: that random rolls create more usable variety, and gives players something to do, (meaning reasons to play run out too fast without them). The latter argument is basically saying “Destiny’s gameplay is too disinteresting to maintain my attention on it’s own, and it needs to something addictive like gambling for me to care about it.” When a game has interesting gameplay and you enjoy it, you give yourself something to do and don’t need prompting (just look at the fanbases of Minecraft and GTA V, where players with nothing in-game to pursue that isn’t easily attainable go bonkers doing their own crap with what they’re given). As for the former, it’s fallacious reasoning. The argument is more or less “the current mixed pile of gold and trash sucks because it’s too small. What would be cool is a large pile of gold and trash.” The better solution sounds like getting rid of the trash altogether (and just adding more gold). EDIT EDIT: Taking the game examples previously given, you can actually more meaningfully improve variety by giving players direct control and letting them choose what perks are on their gun. If you need a grind, then Bungie can put one in to grind for the resources you use to make those customizations. That resolves the problem without introducing randomness.
Logical fallacies and how to recognize the tactics shills use to control conversation to fit their narrative.
This post was inspired by this https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ This is just a PSA so that people may look at the different types of logical fallacies and recognize them. I will copy/paste most of the revelant text here so people may read it as the poster can be a little hard to read but so will this post as it will be long. Sometimes we may all use some of these without realizing it. Strawman Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending. False cause Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause. Example: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax. Appeal to emotion Attempting to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional. Example: Luke didn't want to eat his sheep's brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren't fortunate enough to have any food at all. The fallacy fallacy Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as it is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments. Example: Recognizing that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day. Slippery slope That if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen. The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture. Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys. Ad hominem Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it. Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird. Tu quoque Avoid having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism. Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism. Example: Nicole identified that Hannah had committed a logical fallacy, but instead of addressing the substance of her claim, Hannah accused Nicole of committing a fallacy earlier on in the conversation Personal incredulity Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true. Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding. Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time. Special pleading You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false. Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us. Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his 'abilities' were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work. Loaded question Asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot. Example: Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was still having problems with her drug habit. Burden of proof That the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one. Ambiguity A double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading. Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn't paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn't have to pay them because the sign said 'Fine for parking here' and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there. The gambler's fallacy You said that 'runs' occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins. This commonly believed fallacy can be said to have helped create an entire city in the desert of Nevada USA. Though the overall odds of a 'big run' happening may be low, each spin of the wheel is itself entirely independent from the last. So whilst there may be a very small chance that heads will come up 20 times in a row if you flip a coin, the chances of heads coming up on each individual flip remain 50/50, and aren't influenced by what happened before. Example: Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel, so Greg knew that it was close to certain that black would be next up. Suffering an economic form of natural selection with this thinking, he soon lost all of his savings. Bandwagon Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief. Example: Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they're only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair. Appeal to authority That because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true. It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not. Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate). Composition/division Assuming that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts. Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not. Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek. No true Scotsman Made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument. In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument. Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge. Genetic Judging something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be. Black-or-white Presenting two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the eitheor choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate. Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens' rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy. Begging the question Presenting a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise. This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good. Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned. Appeal to nature Arguing that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable. Example: The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of 'artificial' medicines such as antibiotics. Anecdotal Using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence. It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality. Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships The texas sharpshooter Cherry-picking a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption. This 'false cause' fallacy is coined after a marksman shooting randomly at barns and then painting bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he's a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don't necessarily indicate that there is a causal relationship. Example: The makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks point to research showing that of the five countries where Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in the top ten healthiest countries on Earth, therefore Sugarette drinks are healthy. Middle ground Claiming that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth. Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie. Example: Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations must cause some autism, just not all autism. I hope this post helps you to identify the logical fallacies in everyday conversation or even conversation with a shill. Edit: The shills will downvote this. They do not want an informed group to oppose them.
Sorry I haven't contributed one of these in a while, I'm still here just been a bit too busy recently. Also the Games and Theory posts haven't been doing too well recently vote wise. The whole point of me writing them is for you the readers, so if you want to see different content or a change in direction let me know, with out input I can't do anything. Now, on with this.
The denomination effect is a cognitive bias relating to currency, whereby people are less likely to spend larger bills than their equivalent value in smaller bills. By itself it is unremarkable. However in conjunction with
As named after a folk story of the same name. This can be used to exploit further gains in either wealth, assets, time and commitment or even social capital. I have already explained the Ben Franklin effect as well as the gamblers fallacy but not the other two, I will explain them all before going on to explain how this gambit works. The gamblers fallacy is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future. The Ben Franklin effect is when person who has done or completed a favour for someone is more likely to do another favour for that person than they would be if they had received a favour from that person. Loss aversion and the sunk cost fallacy or Escalation of commitment, has been used to describe the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the cost of continuing the decision outweighs the expected benefit. A quick explanation would be if someone buys a cheap car because they are on a budget, and ends up sinking more money into repairs than the cost of a decent car. However instead of getting a new car, they are convinced that after the initial repairs they won't have any future issues, and they reaffirm this state of mind after each repair processes often spending more then several cars worth of money on repairs of their shitty banger, and their car still remains in poor condition. Using the domination effect, it is possible to drip feed money out of a source to the point of no return where they become very invested in an event or situation, specific to the denomination effect this can occur during social games involving gambling, if you are playing for small amounts breaking notes down into coins will make people more likely to part with them and make riskier bets. But as I said this can be applied to many other situations, often more valuable than money, like time and energy in a company start-up getting people to work or invest in a lost cause because they have already invested time and energy, similar to pyramid schemes vector marketing work this way, but rather then people investing money they invest time and energy, something that is not illegal which still make the people at the top a lot of money. This is a point I am continually trying to make, there is ways to get what you want, directly or indirectly in social engineering, ways that are legal where as many laws deal specifically with money and wealth, social contacts, peoples time and energy and other resources can be much more valuable and regulated in no way at all, much of which can be translated into money if needs be, but money is a means to an ends and should never be an end goal, as it is a distraction.
Distinction bias, a concept of decision theory, is the tendency to view two options as more distinctive when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately. This is very similar to The decoy effect which was the last point I covered in my previous post, between that and the wiki Link I don't think I need to explain this one.
A hot-cold empathy gap is a cognitive bias in which a person underestimates the influences of visceral drives, and instead attributes behaviour primarily to other, non-visceral factors. The crux of this idea is that human understanding is "state dependent". For example, when one is angry, it is difficult to understand what it is like for one to be happy, and vice versa This is easily explained as "emotional people make emotional decisions" and it can be seen a lot in politics when politicians and the media try to play on our heart strings, fear, rage, anger to either distract or drive people. I mention negative emotions as they are much easier to cultivate and manipulate There is a benefit to this as an emotional person, to non emotional people will seem irrational and unreasonable because it can be hard to empathise with someone in an emotional state. I experimented with this more than a few times, by being an unreasonable dick to someone in a group, but not others, instead being overly nice to the others in the group, the target began to associate with negative emotions and hated me, but in the eyes of the others in their group they seemed irrational and emotional as they were in a leadership position this in turn undermined their leadership and brought it under question, allowing me to defend the guy who was attacking me, appear reasonable and in contrast to the target, and separately in contrast to what has been said about me appear to be a humble and rational person suitable for the leadership role. Doing this in conjunction with gas-lighting this is a gambit called the innocent whistler
Gas-lighting or gas-lighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity. Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. In it's basic form this would be when someone tells you to calm down when you are calm, to the point of aggravation. sometimes used by shitty moderators who aggravate situation and then use the newly aggravated user as a reason to justify harsher action, like a ban even though it was their initial intent to actively encourage frustration and aggravation. Some times the unintentional side-effect of elaborate well constructed pranks, which cause a target to question their perception of reality and incorrectly address cognitive dissonance in their new perception.
The Innocent Whistler Gambit
The Innocent Whistler Gambit is when you use Gas-lighting in a public social context to undermine someone in a leadership position who has no authority over you. With the intention of making them appear irrational and weak in order to have him replaced by an inside man. While appearing publicly to support them and their organization using their apparent irrational hate of you to expedite the gas-lighting effect. I once used the pretence of a prank, to include people in a gas lighting event, where like an "evil genius" in a clichéd manner I revealed my goals and intent to someone[the target], all my social engineering, various manipulations and machinations and my as yet un-accomplished end game goals.I referenced this when explaining the belief bias in my 3rd games and theory post. What happened after the target went public with the information, he tried to appeal to people on a one on one level private messaging people, these people were in on the "prank" and responded with messages like "It's too late ridiks won" or "There is nothing you can do, just accept it" it must have been a surreal "invasion of the body snatchers" moment for him, when in fact everyone was just in on a prank. This can be used to great effect with the "Glass Castle Gambit" as mentioned in the 4th games and theory post.
In behavioural economics, the endowment effect (also known as divestiture aversion) is the hypothesis that people ascribe more value to things merely because they own them. This is illustrated by the observation that people will tend to pay more to retain something they own than to obtain something owned by someone else—even when there is no cause for attachment, or even if the item was only obtained minutes ago. Console gamers, Mac users, shit even nationalistic patriots I'm looking at you -.- just because you have it doesn't mean its better. This can be used in the stone soup gambit in that you can actually give someone something related to the venture, before encouraging them to invest into the larger venture, and they will attribute value to the item and by association the venture itself. You can also use it with the backfire effect, where you give someone something, and try ask for it back your desire giving it value and then you submitting to allowing the person to keep said item thus increasing its perceived value. This is also effected by the Choice-supportive bias and later the Confirmation bias after people have decided they are committed. To this effect you can actually involve someone and get them to commit to an investment by giving them something rather than taking something from them initially, people being inherently less sceptical to receive free thing then they have to commit nothing in return. A perfect example is a gambling website or event that gives you an initial amount to spend or gamble. The amount of cognitive biases exploited by on-line gambling especially in the situation where they give you money in advance to gamble will require its own post, which I might do next, as it will make referencing what I'm talking about easier.
As usual questions and Input welcome and encouraged, I'll also be tidying this up so if it looks like crap for a bit don't be afraid to say as I might have missed something.
Examples of Gambler’s Fallacy If a woman has had 4 children, all of whom were boys, it would be erroneous to assume that the 5th child will be a daughter. If a certain disease is said to affect 9 out of every 10 people, that does not imply that in a random group of 10 individuals from that area, the same ratio would be observed. I’m teaching a college public speaking course and needed good examples of logical fallacies to help my students think critically about the methods speakers use to persuade their audiences. The most straightforward example of the gambler’s fallacy can be illustrated with a coin toss. If you flip a coin three times (and each outcome is heads), the gambler’s fallacy would be the expectation that, on the fourth flip, the result would be tails. This line of thinking is incorrect, and an example of cognitive bias. Gambler's fallacy occurs when one believes that random happenings are more or less likely to occur because of the frequency with which they have occurred in the past. Examples of Gambler's Fallacy: 1. That team has won the coin toss for the last three games. The gambler’s fallacy is the irrational belief that prior outcomes in a series of events affect the probability of a future outcome, even though the events in question are independent and ... One famous example of this happened in Monte Carlo on Aug. 18, 1913. The roulette wheel landed on black 26 time in a row, and bettors lost millions betting on red based on their belief the odds... Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row. But the concept applies to other forms of gambling and, in turn, investing. Want to share this fallacy on Facebook? Here's a button for you: Free downloads and thinky merch Wall posters, decks of cards and other rather nice things that you might like to own in either free pixel-based or slightly more expensive real-life formats. ... Habitual gamblers fall headlong into these traps. Many others are affected by it too. For example, 'Murphy's Law' (that when something goes wrong it will be the worst thing at the worst time) is often used to explain and provide comfort when things go wrong. The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken belief that past events make the occurrence of a future event statistically less probable. The most common example of this flawed logic is in assuming that...
