![]() Its been fascinating to watch, and very exciting. And you can see it in the quality of new young athletes that are coming up in this new environment, and how much better they are and how much more they are able to learn from the more widely accessible resources than their equivalent counter-parts were 10 years ago. And the more seriously top level play is, and the higher the winning prize pool money goes, the more respectable the sport has become in the public eye, which in turn creates a catch-22 effect whereby players appear more willing to spend more money on the sport on those services.Īll of which increases the level of play at the top. The increased player base, in turn, pays for most of this, as it increases the potential market for the same services as all of the above. ![]() It pays for more analysis into all aspects of gameplay to increase the competitive edge of performers at the top. This then has a trickle down effect in the number of people and seriousness of things like training clinics, professional teachers, professional and more intelligent course construction and analysis. The increased prize money has dramatically changed the number of people and level of competition for people playing the game seriously as well as how seriously everyone involved in top level play takes the sport. I'm not sure that the explosion of popularity has resulted in better people performing in tournaments.īut what has changed, is how much money can be won by competing in disc golf, and how much money is available across the sport as a whole. Over the last 10 years, it has exploded in popularity. I completely without knowledge on the topic would imagine the "for fun" aspect is probably a pretty dominant factor. Not to say I'd be better, but it definitely looks like the scene is "for fun" and not so serious. Overusing scouts in the early game, too eager to trade, noticed a piece being forgotten about once. When it comes to stratego, watching the linked games (from an armchair!), the human players looked relatively sloppy. ![]() Not to mention the motivation that comes from seeing other people work hard. ![]() Pro players were always good, but now bad players are good and pro players are better. I've seen it with dota over the last 10 years. (Getting sick of hearing about cognitive biases and product-market fit and dunning kruger, ffs). Then on the tail end, regular people regurgitate it for years like it's new information. There's a ratchet effect where someone figures something out, other people copy, and it breaks into public consciousness through influencers and popularizers. No matter how good the top players are relative to the competition tho, I feel like a large playerbase still raises the skill bar to a huge degree. Similarly the Nash equilibrium for poker can't be to always fold a weak hand, because that's leaving money on the table because then the opponents will always fold against a raise, which would mean the player could get easy money by raising with a weak hand. There is a Nash equilibrium for the kicker, and it can't be "always kick left" because then the goalie would "always jump left" which would give the kicker an advantage if it kicked right. Both people know that this kicker is great at kicking to the left side of the goal but rather "meh" at kicking to the right, so if the kicker kicks to the left and the goalie jumps left, there's still a 20% chance of scoring, but if the kicker kicks to the right and the goalie jumps right, there's only a 5% chance of scoring. The goalie has to jump one direction, if they jump the wrong direction a goal is scored. Since it's world cup time I'll use a contrived soccer example.Ī penalty kick where the kicker can kick left or kick right.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |