Toronto Sinsinati 2023.

[Alexandar]

Ko se pita? 

Ko se ovde pitao 1991. za ulaz u finale evropskih šampiona. Augentaler dao u zadnjim minutama autogol. Ko se pitao?

Ko se pitao u Bariju 1991. kad je Zvezda postala prvak Evrope? Olimpik koji je napadao ili Zvezda koja je svesno prvi put tada ušla zatvorenije u utakmicu?

.

 

Ko se pitao u play-off seriji izmedju KK Real Madrid - KK Partizan ove godine?

[Pangea]

"Ko se pita" je jedna od najvećih gluposti koje su pisane ovde, lol ..

[Alexandar]

5 minutes ago, Pangea said:

"Ko se pita" je jedna od najvećih gluposti koje su pisane ovde, lol ..

Ma znam. To se desilo bre, a ne ko se pita

Već je počeo US open kvalifikacije a ovde se raspravlja o čemu....?

 

[Marko]

Pa ko vas sprečava da detaljno raspravite i analizirate dosadašnje rezultate i eventualne ishode narednih mečeva USO kvalifikacija 😁

[Darko]

Čitam Thinking Fast and Slow (po drugi put, da se podsetim nekih stvari). I naiđem na ovaj deo:

 

Quote

Tetlock interviewed 284 people who made their living “commenting or

offering advice on political and economic trends.” He asked them to

assess the probabilities that certain events would occur in the not too

distant future, both in areas of the world in which they specialized and in

regions about which they had less knowledge. Would Gorbachev be

ousted in a coup? Would the United States go to war in the Persian Gulf?

Which country would become the next big emerging market? In all, Tetlock

gathered more than 80,000 predictions. He also asked the experts how

they reached their conclusions, how they reacted when proved wrong, and

how they evaluated evidence that did not support their positions.

Respondents were asked to rate the probabilities of three alternative

outcomes in every case: the persistence of the status quo, more of

something such as political freedom or economic growth, or less of that

thing.

The results were devastating. The experts performed worse than they

would have if they had simply assigned equal probabilities to each of the

three potential outcomes. In other words, people who spend their time, and

earn their living, studying a particular topic produce poorer predictions than

dart-throwing monkeys who would have distributed their choices evenly

over the options. Even in the region they knew best, experts were not

significantly better than nonspecialists.

Those who know more forecast very slightly better than those who know

less. But those with the most knowledge are often less reliable. The reason

is that the person who acquires more knowledge develops an enhanced

illusion of her skill and becomes unrealistically overconfident. “We reach

the point of diminishing marginal predictive returns for knowledge

disconcertingly quickly,” Tetlock writes. “In this age of academic

hyperspecialization, there is no reason for supposing that contributors to

top journals—distinguished political scientists, area study specialists,

economists, and so on—are any better than journalists or attentive readers

o f The New York Times in ‘reading&#oul 8217; emerging situations.”

The more famous the forecaster, Tetlock discovered, the more flamboyant

the forecasts. “Experts in demand,” he writes, “were more overconfident

than their colleagues who eked out existences far from the limelight.”

Tetlock also found that experts resisted admitting that they had been

wrong, and when they were compelled to admit error, they had a large

collection of excuses: they had been wrong only in their timing, an

unforeseeable event had intervened, or they had been wrong but for the

right reasons. Experts are just human in the end. They are dazzled by their

own brilliance and hate to be wrong. Experts are led astray not by what

they believe, but by how they think, says Tetlock. He uses the terminology

from Isaiah Berlin’s essay on Tolstoy, “The Hedgehog and the Fox.”

Hedgehogs “know one big thing” and have a theory about the world; they

account for particular events within a coherent framework, bristle with

impatience toward those who don’t see things their way, and are confident

in their forecasts. They are also especially reluctant to admit error. For

hedgehogs, a failed prediction is almost always “off only on timing” or “very

nearly right.” They are opinionated and clear, which is exactly what

television producers love to see on programs. Two hedgehogs on different

sides of an issue, each attacking the idiotic ideas of the adversary, make

for a good show.

Foxes, by contrast, are complex thinkers. They don’t believe that one big

thing drives the march of history (for example, they are unlikely to accept

the view that Ronald Reagan single-handedly ended the cold war by

standing tall against the Soviet Union). Instead the foxes recognize that

reality emerges from the interactions of many different agents and forces,

including blind luck, often producing large and unpredictable outcomes. It

was the foxes who scored best in Tetlock’s study, although their

performance was still very poor. They are less likely than hedgehogs to be

invited to participate in television debates.

 

Ovaj boldovan deo ko da je za tebe pisan. Ti si naš forumski ekspert i hedgehog, @McLeod-e

 

Koga zanima knjiga (ne mogu je dovoljno preporučiti, pisac je dobitnik Nobelove nagrade 2002-e), PDF se može naći ovde:
http://dspace.vnbrims.org:13000/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2224/1/Daniel-Kahneman-Thinking-Fast-and-Slow-.pdf

[McLeod]

Odlicna je knjiga i inace sam je procitao. Samo ovaj zakljucak je cesto neprimenjiv jer nema svaki dogadjaj isti broj varijabli koje uticu na krajnji ishod.

[diego]

2 hours ago, orionbre said:

Ne razumem zasto se toliko potcenjuje defanzivni nacin igre u odnosu na ofanzivni? Naravno da nije "sve na reketu" nominalno agresivnijeg igraca. I defanzivac isto gubi poen ako pogresi ili ako se ne odbrani, plus gubi vise energije na trcanje i igra udarce iz nepovoljnijeg polozaja. Defanziva stavlja stalni pritisak na onoga ko se brani. Napadac moze da smanji agresivnost i rizik kad god pozeli, defanzivac ne moze da prestane da se brani.

Ma glupost... sto je najjace, to je samo prividni "defanzivni" tenis, ako pricamo npr. o Djokovicu i Nadalu, zato sto su sigurni i stabilni u razmenama i "dave" protivnika, tako da je to ustvari pasivno-agresivni tenis, a ne defanzivni. Za Mareja se moze reci da je "defanzivan", ali to opet nista ne govori o tome "ko se pita".

 

Da je "ko se pita" zaista relevantan faktor, onda bi Gulbis bio najbolji teniser jer se sve on pitao. Ili Rodik. Obojica preagresivni, ja sam cak i obozavao da ih gledam jer su lude face i fantasticne serve, ali naravno da to sto se trudis da kontrolises svaki poen i sto se on zavrsava ili tvojim vinerom ili greskom ne znaci nista, inace bi ova dvojica imali najvise GS-ova.

 

Cak i da damo promil sanse takvoj teoriji i krenemo u dublje razmatranje, to nikako ne moze da bude od ovog meca - zato sto je Djokovic ispustio prvi set svojim padom i losom servom, iako je naravno i Alkaraz zasluzan, jer da je bio neko slabiji Djokovic bi se i tu izvukao. Ali onda je Djokovic poceo od drugog seta da dominira, i da je Alkaraz igrao protiv bilo kog drugog tenisera taj drugi teniser bi izgubio glavu i slomio 10 reketa na propustenu prvu, drugu, trecu... sansu da zavrsis mec, ali ne i Djokovic. Sto znaci samo jedno - da je bio jednostavno bolji i da je on od drugog seta do kraja kontrolisao mec. Alkaraz je cak pokazao, kako sam ranije rekao, slabost u vezi srljanja (pre ce to da bude, nego "da se on pita"), i jos jednu netipicnu za njega, izuzetno los bekhend, u kriticnim situacijama, nesto poput Federera sa Nadalom.

[Alexandar]

1 hour ago, Marko said:

Pa ko vas sprečava da detaljno raspravite i analizirate dosadašnje rezultate i eventualne ishode narednih mečeva USO kvalifikacija 😁

A gde da se raspravlja!?

[Marko]

Gde god... Nebitno. Ako ima ljudi koji će dovoljno da raspredu oko toga, nije važno da li bi to bilo ovde ili na početnim stranama USO teme. 

Ja se doduše stvarno ne sećam kad se ovde o kvalama pričalo više od nekoliko postova

Edited August 23, 2023 by Marko

[Alexandar]

Znači gde god da se raspravlja može o USO  temi. To ka'eš?

Ne vidim je otvorenu pa pitam pametnije

Edited August 23, 2023 by Alexandar

[Helena]

Želim da kažem još ovo-mislim da Alkaraz neće izdržati pa skoro dve decenije ovakvog ritma i načina života.On je već od turnirskih nagrada zaradio oko 20 miliona...od srca bih želela da se varam,ali...

Druga stvar-Alkarazov trener je najgadnija pojava u tenisu u svakom pogledu i bilo bi sjajno da ode sa tog mesta što pre.

 

[alcesta]

Ne znam da li mislimo na istog, Alkarazov trener je Ferero i meni je uvek bio skroz simpatičan.

 

A nažalost ima se šta pisati i o USO kvalifikacijama, a bolje da nema. Evo ovde dok se ne otvori tema.

 

https://sportklub.n1info.rs/tenis/grand-slam/us-open/skandal-na-hamadovom-mecu-ovo-je-njujork-ne-je-na-srbija/

 

[Helena]

Da, mislimo na istog-gledala sam meč sa torenta bez komentatora i on non stop, ali bukvalno, ne prestaje da priča i melje...plus čupka te tri dlake što ima i uopšte mi jako ide na ganglije.

Ovo sam sad videla i ne znam zašto su čekali da se meč završi.

Jako me draži što nema teme, te molim @Drug Crni ako želi, da otvori jednom rečenicom.

Naslov neka bude 24 

[Helena]

[JPM]

Odgledah celo finale jutros.

 

Uopste nije "sve zavisilo od Alkaraza" i nije tacno da je igrao preagresivno. Novak je u njegovim godinama igrao mnogo ostrije udarce. Karlos je igrao snazno ali sa dosta spina i fantasticno pogadjao pasing sotove. Nakon sto se vratio u drugi set, Novak je sve vreme bio bolji igrac ali ceo mec je bio u nijansama.

 

Fantasticno finale.

 

 

[McLeod]

Ferero je jedan od najpristojnijih i najboljih likova bio na turu i kao igrac a i sada kao trener

[double fault]

nemo neko da bi mi dirao juana 

spanci inace mnogo pricaju , tako da on i ne spada u neke velike pricalice 

[diego]

Ferera sam voleo kao igraca, kao trener iritantan, u fazonu lako cemo, najbolji smo. Mozda gresim ali takav vajb dobijam. Slican vajb mi je davao svojevremeno Marejev boks, pa znamo kako je to zavrsilo, ni malo po potencijalu i prognozama. 

Vajda je i dalje tata, takva njuska smirena a optimisticna se retko vidja. 

[Barker]

Slazem se i ja glede Ferera kao trenera. Potpuno isti osecaj kao i @diego

[alcesta]

24 minutes ago, diego said:

Slican vajb mi je davao svojevremeno Marejev boks, pa znamo kako je to zavrsilo, ni malo po potencijalu i prognozama. 

Misliš sa Lendlom ili posle? Svakako sa Lendlom nije uopšte loše išlo, ne računam ono kasnije kad su ga stigle povrede.

Što se tiče potencijala, kao da čujem Meka već 

[diego]

1 hour ago, alcesta said:

Misliš sa Lendlom ili posle? Svakako sa Lendlom nije uopšte loše išlo, ne računam ono kasnije kad su ga stigle povrede.

Što se tiče potencijala, kao da čujem Meka već 

 

Na ovog lika sam mislio, ostao mi nesto u ljigavom secanju... 😁