5 ms·

I've noticed this to be true for table tennis and other sports too. When I play against a less experienced player, it's quite frustrating to notice that most of

by mercer 7y ago

I've noticed this to be true for table tennis and other sports too. When I play against a less experienced player, it's quite frustrating to notice that most of the points I score are clear mistakes on their part, rather than any kind of skilled moves on my part.

wilburTheDog 7y ago
Charles Ellis wrote a book(1) about that. He asserts that any professional sports competition is a winner's game - you win by successfully executing difficult plays and being better than your competition. But amateur sports is usually a loser's game - you win by not making as many mistakes as your competition. The book is about finance but the observation is universal. 1. https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Losers-Game-6th-Strategies/dp/0071813659 https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Losers-Game-6th-Strategies/dp...
- clairity 7y ago
  not having read the book, that seems insightful on the surface but isn’t particularly useful or actionable. all it seems to be saying is that to become better, make fewer mistakes, with an implied exhortion to practice. is there more to it than that?
  - ska 7y ago
    I think the idea is that if you aren't operating at "pro league" level in anything, you should focus mostly on getting the basics right and not making mistakes. But if you are operating at that level, this is table stakes and you need to do more, or your competition will overrun you. I suspect most people/organizations operating at the highest level understand or have internalized this, but many in the other category have not, to their demise. I've certainly seen organizations get themselves in trouble by trying to execute on something trickier than they were ready for. And others fail at something through an accumulation of clearly (at least, in retrospect) avoidable mistakes. The corollary being that you are very likely to be in the latter category, like it or not, and it's best to realize it. I haven't read the book though so could easily be misinterpreting.
    - clairity 7y ago
      > "I think the idea is that if you aren't operating at "pro league" level in anything, you should focus mostly on getting the basics right and not making mistakes." still, that's just a matter of definition and perspective. even at a pro level, if you don't win, you made at least one mistake relative to your opponent. so to win, make fewer mistakes, right? i don't play video games anymore (and never played more than recreationally), but i've played pro-am basketball, and from my observation, being a pro doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. it usually means that, besides having highly honed skills, you have more tricks in the bag to recover from your mistakes (and conversely, to induce mistakes in opponents). so the contention is that everyone can benefit from a strategy of reducing mistakes (aka active practice), pro or not, and the prior anecdote isn't really super-useful. --devli's advocate
      - ska 7y ago
        > so to win, make fewer mistakes, right? I don't think that is correct according the to thesis (and again, haven't read it so may be misrepresenting). They are saying that at that (pro) level, not making mistakes is not enough, you have to make things happen too. Obviously making too many mistakes will cost you, but they are suggesting that playing "perfectly safe" can still easily lead to a loss. I don't think anyone was suggesting that pros don't make mistakes (hell, there are entire stats dedicated to this), but rather than merely focusing on minimizing them will not win you a championship. The idea is that conversely at lower levels of performance, this isn't the case, and it really is mostly about lowering mistake rates. More tellingly, it suggests that the opportunity cost of focusing on anything else is likely too high. To tie it back to the actual post, this suggests if you are spending a bunch of time and effort "metagaming" but you haven't already mastered the game, you are probably going to have poorer returns than just getting better at the game. This at least sounds plausible to me.
    - JackFr 7y ago
      Until you get to the level of college and NFL, being successful as a quarterback is largely about being physically gifted. At those lofty levels though sometimes a QB who looked unstoppable at a lower level looks lost at sea. That because everyone on the field is a supremely gifted athlete, the game becomes far more intellectual, and these guys find themselves unable to handle the complexity of the defensive schemes and offensive systems.
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    In my experience not everyone is mindful of their mistakes. If you write them off to 'bad luck' or circumstance, you miss the opportunity to understand the root cause of the outcome (the mistake if you will). As an action plan, I would write that: Engage in the activity and dive deeply into all of the mistakes you make and develop the skill or tactic to avoid that mistake in the future. At the point where you don't make mistakes any more, then you start look at the meta and responding to what your opponent is setting up to do, rather than what they are doing right now.
    - clairity 7y ago
      that's a good point--players should practice acively, rather than passively (like shooting lots of baskets but never working on improving your shooting form). but i'd still contend you never get to a point where you don't make mistakes and then turn to the meta-game. folks tend to start thinking about, and honing, the meta-game at different levels of experience.
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    I think it's more actionable than it may appear. For me, in most multiplayer games (Overwatch and such), I became far better (and more useful to the team) when I focused more on staying alive ("not making mistakes") rather than trying to execute fancy plays.
  - oblio 7y ago
    For most sports, if you're defensive you'll beat offensive minded people until you reach a very high level of amateur play. People will constantly make low percentage plays because they're fun and they will misplay while executing them. They will "fall on their own swords". For most games with a net, focus on keeping the ball in play. For team sports, play defense and just keep it simple. Basically, "never interrupt your adversary while they are making a mistake".
    - ErikAugust 7y ago
      I think this is true in professional ball sports in sort of the inverse. Once you reach the highest level, then the focus is once again on defense. Defense wins championships.
      - ksdale 7y ago
        I played a lot of American football growing up and so heard the quote "Defense wins championships" very regularly and I always disagreed. Teams lose games all the time while holding the other team to a very low score, but almost no one ever loses if they put up 50 points. But then again, I played offense...
        gowld 7y ago
        Teams also win all to time while a low score and lose if they allow 50pts.
        ksdale 7y ago
        It's easy to score 1 or 2 touchdowns on accident, even against the best defense in the league. No one scores 50 points on accident, especially against solid opponents.
  - slowmovintarget 7y ago
    That depends. I think it means that at a certain level, in order to improve, you must play tougher opponents. The game of Go makes this abundantly clear. You can actually damage your own skills by playing too many inexperienced or weaker opponents. But playing someone just a bit stronger than you can improve you both. I don't know if this works the same in e-sports, but it is striking in Go, or to a lesser extent, Chess.
  - breischl 7y ago
    In the original context (finance/investing) his point is that virtually nobody actually manages to consistently beat the market average (net of fees). So it's a "loser's game" and most people would do better avoiding mistakes like paying high fees than trying to beat the market.
  - sunnydayddr 7y ago
    This has direct implications in head-to-head games. In fighting games, this observation leads to the following advice for someone playing against an opponent with weaker fundamentals: "play it safe until you give them enough rope to hang themselves." Instead of going in as aggressively as normally would be required against a skilled opponent, just sit there and defend, and give your opponent free reign to try to crack your defense. The more they try, the more chances they give themselves to slip up and make a big mistake, which you then take full advantage of. If their execution is worse than your defense, this is seen as a less risky strategy than going in on the offensive and hoping you don't make a mistake yourself. Also applies to chess in the same way. Weaker opponents tend to accidentally "hang" their pieces a lot (i.e. move their pieces directly under attack of your pieces) just by poor observation, so it can be a good strategy to just stall, keep to your side of the board, and wait until your opponent slips up and makes a crucial mistake. Once they've made enough mistakes and you have enough of a material advantage, moving in for the win becomes completely trivial.
- mercer 7y ago
  I've noticed this with chess too. As a kid, I briefly developed an obsession with chess. The book I read through argued that if I simply followed a few basic rules religiously, I'd instantly be a 'better' player than many who maybe played a lot more, but didn't know about these rules. And sure enough, when my obsession quickly waned, and without having played much chess at all, I found myself consistently winning from novices who had a lot more experience than I did. In hindsight, I suspect what happened is that they played a better game but were more likely to make catastrophic mistakes. Of course, I suspect any player with any training probably applies these basic rules already, and would easily defeat me.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    Do you recall these rules? I'm rather curious about them.
    - bsder 7y ago
      There are zillions of them, but it's normally some combination of: 1) Initially develop your pieces in the center rather than threaten or capture the opponent's pieces (this avoids most traps where opponents pull you out of position). 2) Castle by move 8-10 3) Don't leave your king where it can be checked 4) Don't hang pieces Executing these, however, is the problem. Number 4, in particular, is just something that requires a lot of practice. Most games below 2000 rating seem to be lost because somebody hangs a piece.
      - mercer 7y ago
        Yeah, these were some of them. I think 'put your horseys in the middle' was another specific one. Well, not worded that way of course.
    - danem 7y ago
      I found John Bartholowmew's[1] videos extremely helpful when I was playing a lot of chess. Definitely saw a huge improvement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2huVf1l4UE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2huVf1l4UE
cwillu 7y ago
I routinely tell my teammates "let the other team make the mistakes".
JackFr 7y ago
I used to play chess in college with a master (now grandmaster) player. He would always let me take back moves when I did something stupid (sometimes even a couple). As he put it it was no fun to win on someones goof, what was fun was winning when they were playing the best possible game they could.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
gcmeplz 7y ago
For someone who's awful at pool like me, I suspect that optimal play is to avoid ever hitting any ball in to increase the likelihood that your opponent will scratch on the 8-ball.
pimmen 7y ago
Whenever I play poker with friends this is my experience too. I don't do anything really fancy at all, I basically just follow very simple guidelines anyone can look up on the Internet. I just wait for good cards, permit worse cards the further down I am in the betting chain, raise or fold instead of calling most of the time, and I bet agressively when I have really good cards to get the most value. I win because my opponents have no idea of what they’re doing, and even if you would point out an obvious misplay they wouldn’t even agree. Most people who play casually have some romantic ideas about poker from spy movies, where it's about bluffing. Bluffing only works if people actually believe you have good cards, people won't believe you have good cards if you play with mediocre or bad cards every hand. I am by no means good enough to beat a person who is good at the game that could profile my playing style, do the mental math faster than me and who can tell the difference between whether or not I have analysis paralysis or bluffing.
SubiculumCode 7y ago
In chess, when titled players play lower ranked players, they profess not to play for a win (i.e. take chances), but just play solid moves and wait for their opponents to blunder the game away.

by mercer 7y ago

wilburTheDog 7y ago

Charles Ellis wrote a book(1) about that. He asserts that any professional sports competition is a winner's game - you win by successfully executing difficult plays and being better than your competition. But amateur sports is usually a loser's game - you win by not making as many mistakes as your competition. The book is about finance but the observation is universal. 1. https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Losers-Game-6th-Strategies/dp/0071813659 https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Losers-Game-6th-Strategies/dp...

clairity 7y ago
not having read the book, that seems insightful on the surface but isn’t particularly useful or actionable. all it seems to be saying is that to become better, make fewer mistakes, with an implied exhortion to practice. is there more to it than that?
- ska 7y ago
  I think the idea is that if you aren't operating at "pro league" level in anything, you should focus mostly on getting the basics right and not making mistakes. But if you are operating at that level, this is table stakes and you need to do more, or your competition will overrun you. I suspect most people/organizations operating at the highest level understand or have internalized this, but many in the other category have not, to their demise. I've certainly seen organizations get themselves in trouble by trying to execute on something trickier than they were ready for. And others fail at something through an accumulation of clearly (at least, in retrospect) avoidable mistakes. The corollary being that you are very likely to be in the latter category, like it or not, and it's best to realize it. I haven't read the book though so could easily be misinterpreting.
  - clairity 7y ago
    > "I think the idea is that if you aren't operating at "pro league" level in anything, you should focus mostly on getting the basics right and not making mistakes." still, that's just a matter of definition and perspective. even at a pro level, if you don't win, you made at least one mistake relative to your opponent. so to win, make fewer mistakes, right? i don't play video games anymore (and never played more than recreationally), but i've played pro-am basketball, and from my observation, being a pro doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. it usually means that, besides having highly honed skills, you have more tricks in the bag to recover from your mistakes (and conversely, to induce mistakes in opponents). so the contention is that everyone can benefit from a strategy of reducing mistakes (aka active practice), pro or not, and the prior anecdote isn't really super-useful. --devli's advocate
    - ska 7y ago
      > so to win, make fewer mistakes, right? I don't think that is correct according the to thesis (and again, haven't read it so may be misrepresenting). They are saying that at that (pro) level, not making mistakes is not enough, you have to make things happen too. Obviously making too many mistakes will cost you, but they are suggesting that playing "perfectly safe" can still easily lead to a loss. I don't think anyone was suggesting that pros don't make mistakes (hell, there are entire stats dedicated to this), but rather than merely focusing on minimizing them will not win you a championship. The idea is that conversely at lower levels of performance, this isn't the case, and it really is mostly about lowering mistake rates. More tellingly, it suggests that the opportunity cost of focusing on anything else is likely too high. To tie it back to the actual post, this suggests if you are spending a bunch of time and effort "metagaming" but you haven't already mastered the game, you are probably going to have poorer returns than just getting better at the game. This at least sounds plausible to me.
  - JackFr 7y ago
    Until you get to the level of college and NFL, being successful as a quarterback is largely about being physically gifted. At those lofty levels though sometimes a QB who looked unstoppable at a lower level looks lost at sea. That because everyone on the field is a supremely gifted athlete, the game becomes far more intellectual, and these guys find themselves unable to handle the complexity of the defensive schemes and offensive systems.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  In my experience not everyone is mindful of their mistakes. If you write them off to 'bad luck' or circumstance, you miss the opportunity to understand the root cause of the outcome (the mistake if you will). As an action plan, I would write that: Engage in the activity and dive deeply into all of the mistakes you make and develop the skill or tactic to avoid that mistake in the future. At the point where you don't make mistakes any more, then you start look at the meta and responding to what your opponent is setting up to do, rather than what they are doing right now.
  - clairity 7y ago
    that's a good point--players should practice acively, rather than passively (like shooting lots of baskets but never working on improving your shooting form). but i'd still contend you never get to a point where you don't make mistakes and then turn to the meta-game. folks tend to start thinking about, and honing, the meta-game at different levels of experience.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  I think it's more actionable than it may appear. For me, in most multiplayer games (Overwatch and such), I became far better (and more useful to the team) when I focused more on staying alive ("not making mistakes") rather than trying to execute fancy plays.
- oblio 7y ago
  For most sports, if you're defensive you'll beat offensive minded people until you reach a very high level of amateur play. People will constantly make low percentage plays because they're fun and they will misplay while executing them. They will "fall on their own swords". For most games with a net, focus on keeping the ball in play. For team sports, play defense and just keep it simple. Basically, "never interrupt your adversary while they are making a mistake".
  - ErikAugust 7y ago
    I think this is true in professional ball sports in sort of the inverse. Once you reach the highest level, then the focus is once again on defense. Defense wins championships.
    - ksdale 7y ago
      I played a lot of American football growing up and so heard the quote "Defense wins championships" very regularly and I always disagreed. Teams lose games all the time while holding the other team to a very low score, but almost no one ever loses if they put up 50 points. But then again, I played offense...
      - gowld 7y ago
        Teams also win all to time while a low score and lose if they allow 50pts.
        ksdale 7y ago
        It's easy to score 1 or 2 touchdowns on accident, even against the best defense in the league. No one scores 50 points on accident, especially against solid opponents.
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  That depends. I think it means that at a certain level, in order to improve, you must play tougher opponents. The game of Go makes this abundantly clear. You can actually damage your own skills by playing too many inexperienced or weaker opponents. But playing someone just a bit stronger than you can improve you both. I don't know if this works the same in e-sports, but it is striking in Go, or to a lesser extent, Chess.
- breischl 7y ago
  In the original context (finance/investing) his point is that virtually nobody actually manages to consistently beat the market average (net of fees). So it's a "loser's game" and most people would do better avoiding mistakes like paying high fees than trying to beat the market.
- sunnydayddr 7y ago
  This has direct implications in head-to-head games. In fighting games, this observation leads to the following advice for someone playing against an opponent with weaker fundamentals: "play it safe until you give them enough rope to hang themselves." Instead of going in as aggressively as normally would be required against a skilled opponent, just sit there and defend, and give your opponent free reign to try to crack your defense. The more they try, the more chances they give themselves to slip up and make a big mistake, which you then take full advantage of. If their execution is worse than your defense, this is seen as a less risky strategy than going in on the offensive and hoping you don't make a mistake yourself. Also applies to chess in the same way. Weaker opponents tend to accidentally "hang" their pieces a lot (i.e. move their pieces directly under attack of your pieces) just by poor observation, so it can be a good strategy to just stall, keep to your side of the board, and wait until your opponent slips up and makes a crucial mistake. Once they've made enough mistakes and you have enough of a material advantage, moving in for the win becomes completely trivial.
mercer 7y ago
I've noticed this with chess too. As a kid, I briefly developed an obsession with chess. The book I read through argued that if I simply followed a few basic rules religiously, I'd instantly be a 'better' player than many who maybe played a lot more, but didn't know about these rules. And sure enough, when my obsession quickly waned, and without having played much chess at all, I found myself consistently winning from novices who had a lot more experience than I did. In hindsight, I suspect what happened is that they played a better game but were more likely to make catastrophic mistakes. Of course, I suspect any player with any training probably applies these basic rules already, and would easily defeat me.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Do you recall these rules? I'm rather curious about them.
  - bsder 7y ago
    There are zillions of them, but it's normally some combination of: 1) Initially develop your pieces in the center rather than threaten or capture the opponent's pieces (this avoids most traps where opponents pull you out of position). 2) Castle by move 8-10 3) Don't leave your king where it can be checked 4) Don't hang pieces Executing these, however, is the problem. Number 4, in particular, is just something that requires a lot of practice. Most games below 2000 rating seem to be lost because somebody hangs a piece.
    - mercer 7y ago
      Yeah, these were some of them. I think 'put your horseys in the middle' was another specific one. Well, not worded that way of course.
  - danem 7y ago
    I found John Bartholowmew's[1] videos extremely helpful when I was playing a lot of chess. Definitely saw a huge improvement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2huVf1l4UE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2huVf1l4UE

cwillu 7y ago

I routinely tell my teammates "let the other team make the mistakes".

JackFr 7y ago

I used to play chess in college with a master (now grandmaster) player. He would always let me take back moves when I did something stupid (sometimes even a couple). As he put it it was no fun to win on someones goof, what was fun was winning when they were playing the best possible game they could.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

gcmeplz 7y ago

For someone who's awful at pool like me, I suspect that optimal play is to avoid ever hitting any ball in to increase the likelihood that your opponent will scratch on the 8-ball.

pimmen 7y ago

Whenever I play poker with friends this is my experience too. I don't do anything really fancy at all, I basically just follow very simple guidelines anyone can look up on the Internet. I just wait for good cards, permit worse cards the further down I am in the betting chain, raise or fold instead of calling most of the time, and I bet agressively when I have really good cards to get the most value. I win because my opponents have no idea of what they’re doing, and even if you would point out an obvious misplay they wouldn’t even agree. Most people who play casually have some romantic ideas about poker from spy movies, where it's about bluffing. Bluffing only works if people actually believe you have good cards, people won't believe you have good cards if you play with mediocre or bad cards every hand. I am by no means good enough to beat a person who is good at the game that could profile my playing style, do the mental math faster than me and who can tell the difference between whether or not I have analysis paralysis or bluffing.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

In chess, when titled players play lower ranked players, they profess not to play for a win (i.e. take chances), but just play solid moves and wait for their opponents to blunder the game away.