4 ms·
I think you're missing what I'm saying. The criticism is, 'I don't like the article's metric because it doesn't zoom in on the tail of the distribution'. But
by smallnamespace 10y ago
I think you're missing what I'm saying.
The criticism is, 'I don't like the article's metric because it doesn't zoom in on the tail of the distribution'.
But if you do that with any game, the answer you will get is uniformly 0.5, even when comparing chess to tic tac toe.
- schwap 10y agoNo I understand your argument, I'm just trying to illustrate how small a part of the tail professional sports really is (turns out it's small but not that small).
- simplemath 10y agoDepends on the sport. For NBA and NFL athletes in the US, it is close to 1 in 10k high school athletes in those sports that make it to the pros
- x1798DE 10y agoI think schwap's point was that you can't draw the conclusion "Fantasy games are more games of skill than their professional counterparts" when you're comparing people self-selected to have close to even skill levels (elite athletes) to a random sampling of the population. Of course there's more skill advantage in a random sampling than a sample biased by skill.