March Madness, Vegas, and Wall Street share a lot in common.
Over Time ... The House Wins
Casinos only offer to play games that they expect to win. In contrast, gambling customers play even though they know the odds are against them.
Why does this happen? The rush of a win, the chance of a big win, and random reinforcement are common factors that incentivize people to play the lotto, go to a casino, or try to trade.
Chemicals like adrenaline and dopamine play a part as well. Even in a sea of losses, your body can't help but crave the chemical reward of even a small win.
The "House" knows this and engineers an experience that takes advantage of it.
In the case of casinos, every detail is meticulously crafted to extract you from your money - from carpet patterns to the labyrinthian layouts, the music, the lights, and even the games themselves.
Here is an infographic that lays it out for you.
Most people aren't gamblers ... the fear of losing big inhibits them. However, when people were instructed to "think like a trader," they showed considerably less risk aversion when gambling. And I bet you have no problem filling out a March Madness bracket, even if you put money on the line.
The illusion of control convinces us we can overcome the statistics.
When you almost get it right - when you guess the first round of March Madness correctly, when you miss the jackpot by one slot on a slot machine, when you just mistime a trade to get a big win - you're more likely to play longer, and place bigger bets ... because you're "so close."
It's human nature to want to feel in control.
This is why you find a lot of superstitious traders & gamblers. If you wear this lucky item of clothing ... if you throw the dice in this particular way ... if you check your holdings at this time every day ... you have control.
There is a big difference between causation and correlation.
It is not hard to imagine that, for most traders, the majority of their activities do little to create a real and lasting edge.
Skill vs. Luck
There are games of skill, and there are games of chance.
In a casino, poker, and blackjack are considered games of skill. In contrast, slot machines are considered a game of chance.
In trading, predicting markets is much different than using math and statistics to measure the performance of a technique.
Much of what we do is to figure out how to eliminate the fear, greed, and discretionary mistakes humans bring to trading.
In trading, "Alpha" is the measure of excess return attributed to manager skill, rather than luck or taking on more risk.
We believe in Alpha-by-Avoidance ... Meaning much of what we do is figure out what to ignore or avoid so that more of the games we play are games of skill rather than games of chance.
Are you playing the right game?
Mad About March Madness
March Madness is in full swing and will have the world's attention for a few more days. As you can guess, almost no one has a perfect bracket anymore. McNeese beat Clemson, Drake beat Mizzou, and Arkansas handed Kansas its first first-round loss since 2006. On Friday, the NCAA said that of the over 34 million brackets submitted at the start of March Madness, approximately 1,600 remained perfect. That's less than .1% after the first day. The first game of the tournament - Creighton vs. Louisville - busted over half of the brackets.
Before 24/7 sports channels, people watched the weekly show "The Wide World of Sports." Its opening theme promised "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat!" and "The human drama of athletic competition." That defines March Madness.
The holy grail is mighty elusive in March Madness (as in most things). For example, the odds of getting the perfect bracket are 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (that is 1 in 9.223 quintillion if that was too many zeros count). If you want better odds, then you can have a 1 in 2.4 trillion chance based on a Duke Mathematician's formula that takes into account ranks). It's easier to win back-to-back lotteries than picking a perfect bracket. Nonetheless, I bet you felt pretty good when you filled out your bracket.
via Duke University
Here's some more crazy March Madness Stats:
Feeding the Madness
In 2017, I highlighted three people who were (semi) successful at predicting March Madness: a 13-year-old who used a mix of guesswork and preferences, a 47-year-old English woman who used algorithms and data science (despite not knowing the game), and a 70-year-old bookie who had his finger on the pulse of the betting world. None of them had the same success even a year later.
Finding an edge is hard - Maintaining an edge is even harder.
That's not to say there aren't edges to be found.
Bracket-choosing mimics the way investors pick trades or allocate assets. Some people use gut feelings, some base their decisions on current and historical performance, and some use predictive models. You've got different inputs, weights, and miscellaneous factors influencing your decision. That makes you feel powerful. But knowing the history, their ranks, etc., can help make an educated guess, and they can also lead you astray.
The allure of March Madness is the same as gambling or trading. As sports fans, it's easy to believe we know something the layman doesn't. We want the bragging rights for the sleeper pick that went deeper than most expected, our alma mater winning, and for the big upset we predicted.
You'd think an NCAA analyst might have a better shot at a perfect bracket than your grandma or musical-loving co-worker.
In reality, several of the highest-ranked brackets every year are guesses.
The commonality in all decisions is that we are biased. Bias is inherent to the process because there isn't a clear-cut answer. We don't know who will win or what makes a perfect prediction.
Think about it from a market efficiency standpoint. People make decisions based on many factors — sometimes irrational ones — which can create inefficiencies and complexities. It can be hard to find those inefficiencies and capitalize on them, but they're there to be found.
In trading, AI and advanced math help remove biases and identify inefficiencies humans miss.
Can machine learning also help in March Madness?
The data is there. Over 100,000 NCAA regular-season games were played over the last 25+ years, and we generally have plenty of statistics about the teams for each season. There are plenty of questions to be asked about that data that may add an extra edge.
That said, people have tried before with mediocre success. It's hard to overcome the intangibles of sports—hustle, the crowd, momentum—and it's hard to overcome the odds of 1 in 9.2 quintillion.
Two lessons can be learned from this:
Something to think about.
Posted at 06:54 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Games, Ideas, Just for Fun, Market Commentary, Personal Development, Science, Sports, Television, Trading, Trading Tools, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)