Has Sklansky ever mentioned this one? What are the odds of both being the best player in the world in probably the most competitive sport and having an extremely rare condition that requires taking HGH?

Neither of these links below make the case that Messi benefits from HGH but this does give you some background on the coincidence. Messi is known for incredible acceleration and speed in addition to extreme talent.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...r-in-the-world

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rch-finds.html

Of course my theory applies. In fact much more so than the examples I used.

What is the Sklansky Coincidence Theory?


PairTheBoard

Useful background information:

Papers/random.pdf

If two rare events both happen together and there is a theory connecting them that is plausible though unlikely (before the events happened), that theory becomes a favorite over the alternative explanation that it was a coincidence.

To risk stating the obvious, "It depends on the numbers".

How does the product of the first two compare with the third?

How big part of the population in the age say 20-30 are professional athletes? Take it from there. How big part of them have HGH deficiency? If they are overrepresented, you may have a case. It would be expected to have many good but not Messis if there was a connection.

Otherwise we may have selection bias (watching out until finding something suspicious)

Sounds like the foundational thinking behind all conspiracy theories.


PairTheBoard

1. Odds that a particular individual is a world class player: 1 in 100,000,000
2. Odds that a particular individual has HGH deficiency: The incidence of idiopathic GHD in infants is about 1 in every 3800 live births

3. Odds that GHD treatment in these individuals confers athletic superpowers in an otherwise normal individual: 1 in 10,000+ I would say

#1 is irrelevant.
#2 is 1 in 3800
#3 is 1 in 10,000

Therefore it is far more likely than not that GHD treatment for GHD deficiency is not the reason that this man is a world class player.

What is wrong with the above analysis? I see no reason whatsoever that this should be a product of two rare events. To see that, imagine GHD treated individuals were 1 in 2 rather than 1 in 3800.

I think Sklansky is not needed here. This is a straight comparison:

1. What are the odds that GHD treatment increases athletic prowess in adults? High.
2. What are the odds that this guy is still taking GHD treatment as an adult (high?).
3. What are the odds that GHD treatment is helping him perform at a world-class level (high).

I don't see a need for Special Sklansky Theories.

It isn't the product of the two rare events.

# 3 should be the odds that the drug bumps you up a little, not the odds that it turns a normal person into superman.

Lets say that is one in 20. I now pick one athlete out of 100 in my house to give the drug to. A year later he is shown to be the best among them. Its probably not a coincidence.

Bayes theorem/updating in action likely but can you make it clear in this case for all interested what the theory is in the OP example or how precisely it applies? Like precisely state what the 2 rare events are here and what theory connects them in this case.

Also why is it now that the theory becomes more plausible than the coincidence theory? It probably only in general gets enhanced even by orders of magnitude vs the original probability that theory had as a claim before the observation. Still it doesnt necessarily get over 50% always.

As an example imagine we have a theory that someone is messing with the coins in some competition and it has chance 10^-6 of being true because there are safeguards that reduce it to that level (ie people are watching and change shifts very rarely and randomly and one has to be exactly there and make the switch etc during the shift change but nobody is allowed to be there for more than 10 min at a time etc because of another system in place that checks visitors etc. If they managed to mess they put a 60-40 coin there.

Now imagine that a coin is used and results in a remarkable run that is evaluated as ~10^-4 (eg it landed heads 13 times in a row in the very first 13 trials) to be the result of pure luck. The next day that coin is taken to another test and gives 10^-3 chance (10 heads in 10 trials). Now 2 rare things have happened. The chance it's a coincidence is what? It is the chance it is still not a biased coin.

We have the following Bayes analysis;

P( coin being biased| 2 rare events happened) = P( 2 rare events happened given coin is biased)*P(Coin is biased)/P(2 rare events happened)


P( 2 rare events happened given coin is biased)= 0.6^13*0.6^10=7.897*10^-6

P(Coin is biased)=10^-6 (the chance they succeeded interfering above)

P(2 rare events happened)= P (coin is fair) * 1/2^23+ P(coin is biased)*0.6^23=(1-10^-6)*1/2^23+0.6^23*10^-6=1.192*10^-7

So P( coin being biased| 2 rare events happened)=7.897*10^-6*10^-6/1.192*10^-7=6.625*10^-5

That is 66 times more likely now but it is still not the most plausible theory about what happened!

There's a theory that sunspots are a causative factor in earthquakes. A rare super sunspot event happens at the same time as a rare huge earthquake devastates a region of Peru. Do you bet on the theory or coincidence?

What if the theory was based on a rare alignment of planets, i.e. astrological?

There's a theory that Trump hates low poll numbers and will execute false flag attacks prompting strong presidential action that will raise his approval ratings. Trump's numbers suddenly drop below 30 and days later a 9/11 type attack happens. Coincidence?

Or, as Fox News repeatedly insinuated with Obama on practically everything, isn't the timing suspicious?


PairTheBoard

Messi could have been even better without the syndrome? He may irreversibly have lost some potential before getting treatment.

Anyway, if Messi was a weight lifter we maybe should look a bit closer into this...

Soccer is between the ears to a big part imo, not to dismiss the physique in any way.

If that is true, why is this true?

In cuckball, the average retirement age for a player is 35 years old

Players with a lot of experience are leaving the game as soon as they drop off peak physical performance. Which happens to be at the same age as most other sports, and younger than many.

If it's "between the ears", why would this be the case? Surely 10 years of experience and high level training would outweigh the tiny physical advantage a 25 year old has over an active 35 year old.

We have to adjust the number for "incidents potentially noticed".

If we have the capacity to notice billions of events in our lifetime - and we do thanks to the power of media - then your coincidence becomes the favorite even with long odds.

In other words, you have to prior Sklansky's priors to account for your own cognition.

Yes, you are right, I was playing around, like you are. I retire to my first post. Anything to say about that one?

Playing around is good. Your first post is how to sanely analyze this.

I'm not convinced that Bayes Theorem has a lot of real world applications. Perhaps I just lack Sklansky's intelligence.

Thanks.

I once stated that DS must be a genius, because he did something nobody had done before, wrote the Theory of Poker. He is the Einstein (160) of poker. So, David, do you have an IQ of 160 or more, at least slightly beating masque? Or was 140 (148) enough for being genius?

PS, nothing to do with this: Mike Caro with his reads must be about 160 in SI (social intelligence)

Messi was born with all the talents of a soccer superstar except height. HGH in children is primarily used for bone growth and little else. It got him up to an acceptable 5'7" where without it he may have been 5' 0" which would be too short to be a successful pro. So yes HGH helped him be a superstar. I'm don't see why any math is needed to reach that conclusion.

I know two people who got HGH for short stature as kids. They got taller but were not paticularly better at athletics. In high school, one got perfect score on the SAT though and the other got a near perfect score though. Does that mean HGH made them supersmart? No.

It made them more self confident boosting self esteem likely, even on something so superficial, which is important in order to be a successful student not having one more thing to feel bad about.

PS: 3-0 today. Oops. If 2 rare events happen the same season ie some 4-0 there with referee assistance like last time then the conspiracy theory will skyrocket to >50% !

Has Messi won a world cup, yet?

+1.

Meanwhile I am kicking myself for not following through on posting a year ago about what I perceived to be another example of my theory. Namely that the number of pretty blondes on Fox News was WAY above what could be predicted by chance and was thus unlikely to be a coincidence.