
The Case for Human Intelligence - jonbaer
http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-case-for-human-intelligence/
======
sharemywin
Did someone actually predict something with this "human intelligence" if not
than what's the point from a prediction perspective.

~~~
keenrodent
Without rewriting the article, the point is that there's an exploitable gap
between the output of modern prediction systems and athlete performance that
is explainable by information not accounted for in prediction systems.

The writer suggests that it wouldn't be too hard or expensive for someone to
gather this "extra" information, and with enough of it and enough study of it,
it's likely they could come up with a winning system over automated prediction
systems.

From my own experience around MLB and MiLB teams I know that teams do this
themselves all the time. They look for pitch patterns, pitch tips, changes in
mechanics, changes in vision, changes in performance within games and within
seasons due to tiring or wear-and-tear. A bettor with some resources could
collect this same information and gain a meaningful advantage.

For a famous example to build on the other examples in the article, in 2006
everyone in baseball except Brad Lidge knew he was tipping his slider [0].
This kind of thing, if your net is spread wide enough, gets discovered all the
time. A savvy bettor or syndicate or bettors could come to know this. Teams
certainly did.

Anyway, my $.02 cents.

[0] [http://www.chron.com/sports/justice/article/Lidge-was-
telegr...](http://www.chron.com/sports/justice/article/Lidge-was-telegraphing-
his-pitches-1640733.php)

------
theobon
The underlying issue appears to be that prediction systems do not take into
account recent changes. Which is common sense, a prediction system is going to
lag.

It makes a cute fluff article about the value of beat reporters when dealing
with baseball stats. It can destroy lives when it comes to predicting if a
person will default on a loan or is likely to re-offend.

------
chrisherd
Classic case of always doing the same thing because it's the way things have
always been done. Only takes one person trying something differenct to start a
'revolution'...

