Most people I've encountered who invoke John Rawls (not many, to be honest) seem to assume that a social order arising out of the Original Position necessarily leads to some kind of communist utopia of complete equality. I have a copy of "A Theory of Justice" and a book on n-person game theory on my bookshelf because I was curious about exploring the possibility that someone in the Original Position *could* rationally opt into a system that is objectively unequal.

The concept is that they are guaranteed base standard of living that is acceptable, but also a small percentage chance of living like a king. I'd say someone could rationally take that gamble. If they opt in without knowing whether they're going to win the gamble, it would be a fair system in the Rawlsian sense.

If you add in the possibility that the social order allows for some people to be trapped in a malaria infested slum in addition to the possibility of living like a king, I don't know how high the chance of getting screwed would have to be before no one would rationally opt into it, but I think it is higher than zero.

Cliffs: Original Position != open source poker training software for all

Hey guys, thanks for reading my email (#7) on the show about baseball batters striking out looking on 0-2 and 1-2 counts tilting me. If I may summarize your answers:

Ross - yeah, I hate when a batter takes a 3-0 pitch

Adam - baseball is hard

Terrence - I know nothing about baseball, but it's really a GTO question

Clearly I should have asked Terrence

Yeah, I was surprised at how well that question was answered.

And the only airline that I make sure I board on time is Southwest, otherwise I get stuck in the worst middle seat.

Then again, now with a daughter, a car seat, and a stroller, I find myself boarding in the family boarding section because time is needed.

As a baseball guy but a decidedly non-traditional one, I enjoyed that question and the discussion that ensued.

Adam definitely hit on one part: pitchers often "waste" a pitch on an 0-2 count, so in general, it will be the least hittable thing at which to swing. Taking an 0-2 pitch is usually a good idea.

That said, wasting a pitch often means a curve that will drop below the strike zone, or a slider that explodes out of it (away from a like-handed batter, in on an opposite-handed batter). So these pitches will still sometimes catch the strike zone, anyway. At that level, pitchers know how to "miss close," which can result in an accidental strike.

Striking out looking on a 1-2 seems much worse, as that's usually the count when the pitcher comes back into the zone. Of course, the batter still has to know what pitch and where. This is part where "baseball is hard" is ultimately the best explanation.

I also agree with Ross about how often batters take the 3-0. Sure, it probably correct to do so in many, if not most, situations. But I hate that it's pretty much automatic. The 3-0 pitch will often be the most hittable pitch a batter sees all day. So take the occasional hack to keep the pitcher honest. In turn, the pitcher will not likely groove a fastball down the heart of the strike zone, and your chances of drawing the walk will go up. But as is, it has to be the single least balanced range in all of sport.

As for Terrence's GTO comment, I threw a fist in the air at this, because I'd love for pitchers and catchers to take up poker just for this reason. Against some poker opponents, an exploitable strategy is more profitable, because they won't adjust for it. Against other opponents, you'd better be as close to GTO as possible because they'll pick up on your tendencies.

Baseball works the same way. Even at the highest levels, there are some batters to whom you can throw high fastballs because they'll never catch up to it well enough to hurt you. (Or maybe you just throw a pitch so well that a batter can't hit it even when they know it's coming. See also Rivera, Mariano.) On the other hand, there are batters where you'd better mix up your pitches as well as you can, because they are good enough to exploit any pattern.

For perhaps the most famous example of a tendency being exploited, look no farther than Kirk Gibson's famous home run off Dennis Eckersley back in the 1988 World Series. The scouting report on Eck was that he always threw a backdoor slider to left-handed batters on that first 3-2 count. Apparently, it was so reliable that you could damn near calibrate your instruments with it. This was the baseball equivalent of Teddy KGB chomping Oreos.

Gibby worked his way to a 3-2 count, then read the next pitch perfectly. If you watch the video, you can see him dart out toward the outside corner of the plate. He knew the velocity, movement and location of the very next pitch – i.e. the three characteristics of a pitch. Add that up, and some fan in the bleachers is bound to receive a souvenir.

Hey sir, thanks for picking up on this discussion! Very interesting points. Obviously batters, even at the major league level, can't track pitches perfectly and will occasionally take a pitch that definitely looks like a ball (so as not to flail at a "waste" pitch) but it ends up a strike (or what an optically challenged umpire considers one). But I see far too many (and I don't even watch that much) hitters look like they're considering swinging at a marginal pitch but don't - and they get rung up.

Even if it's likely that they won't be able to get solid contact on an 0-2 pitch, lots of weakly hit balls find their way into weird spots on the field and turn into hits, and of course fouling a ball off is a small win in that spot too. My theory is that it's one of those classic situations where a person will stick with the conventional wisdom in an attempt to never fail spectacularly (whiffing at a waste pitch, not making it on 4th down, shooting directly at the keeper on a soccer PK), even though it may cost them EV in the long run.

That's it exactly, and it's especially true on the 3-0 take in our two baseball situations.

By the way, if you ever want to see steam shooting out of my ears, glance my way whenever a team automatically lays down a bunt on one of those no-out, runner-on-first situations. While I agree that it's the best situation in which to sacrifice, and acknowledge there are specific settings when it IS the best course of action, I absolutely hate it when managers do it simply as an automatic.

Finally, I'm glad you mentioned the PK. I don't know soccer very well, but I do work our games from time to time, either as the announcer or as a photog. I once asked that very question after a PK: if the keeper always darts in some direction, why not shoot right at him/her? The one thing he/she NEVER does is stay put. So why not shoot at the only location you know for sure won't be guarded?

I got laughed at for even asking. Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this should at least be in the arsenal.

Yet another place where athletes would be well-served by learning poker.

If you watch PK shootouts in World Cup etc, shooters often do this.

It's interesting, because in a one-off PK during a game it seems like shooters tend to try less strategic stuff like this because of the lack of information about the goalies' tendencies. In shootouts, where 5 or more shots are taken shooters will try stuff like shooting up the middle or chipping it etc.

This better not be another variant of the "long run doesn't matter because you'll never be in the situation again" fallacy.

-GTPolice

But it's a more recent development based on GT and stats. I don't want to take "credit" for the idea, I heard about it on freakonomics a few years back.

* Anecdote Alert *
I did see a player attempt this during the shootout of the Peru/Columbia match of the Copa America. He didnt get it up much tho and the keeper made a kick save with his top foot while diving to his left. Pretty amazing play imo.