The Rational Fan: Managing Hopes and Constantly Adjusting Expectations

(I love the mirror image below the bars hinting at the symmetrical negative to any observable outcome.)

Consider the analogy of graphic equalizer meters on a old 70s-80s-era stereo--the ones that would show the recent high-point marks. I think this is a good symbol of the high-water-mark thinking that commonly clouds the judgment of sports fans. Specifically, an irrational (typical?) fan mistakes the best performance for the expected performance. The rational fan thinks in realistic terms where future expectations are influenced by past achievements but not set by them and mean reversion is always expected (eventually).

This would include updating for new information (e.g., a recent trend of wins or losses) when projecting the long-term expectation of winning. (i.e., Is recent performance simply an aberration and regression to the historic mean should be expected? Alternatively, has a new plateau been reached and future expectations must be appropriately adjusted?)

Consider also the emotional impact of a team's performance on a fan. The rational fan must contend with and accept the great irony that the more one's team wins, the more the wins tend to run together and the losses stand out, and vice versa. This is simply the law of diminishing marginal utility (not to be confused with the law of diminishing returns).

Irrational fan foresight is almost always myopic as they only see one side of what could be and probably do so in a vacuum. When an irrational fan imagines a play executed, he imagines an outcome determined by his conviction of the play’s potential success or failure. His judgment is probably additionally clouded by the play's potential excitement. If he would like to see a particular play call, he envisions a successful, if not the perfectly successful, outcome. If he disagrees with a play, he conceives of only its failure. A coach doesn’t get that luxury. Coaches should rationally weight the probability of success and the degree of success with the probability of failure and the degree of failure—what could be and how likely it is. Fans are allowed to dream, coaches are required to calculate. For coaches, magnitude matters.

So on any given play fans are liable to be deeply unsatisfied while coaches see the outcome as satisfactory toward a larger goal. But as should be expected, this is subject to error and unintended consequences. The error can be that coaches have bad incentives leading them to take less risk than they should (another example). The error can also be that fans expect too much. Back to the equalizer analogy, setting expectations on the abnormal high point causes fans to demand an unreasonable level of success. Fans can also be subject to what I would term conventional-wisdom bias--the primary source driving coaches to be overly conservative.

Also, when is a fan a true fan? Consider a convert. As opposed to religion, there is no long process filled with sacrifice and commitment culminating in a grand ceremony to becoming a team's fan. But perhaps there is such a process for becoming a "true" fan. Hence, the concept of bandwagon fans as illegitimate. It is only those who have been there through the tough times who can claim righteousness. For my teams I certainly feel this way.

Perhaps another way to look at it is that to be a true fan you have to feel physical pain when your team loses. Alternatively, you're not a team's true fan until the opponent's pain is your pleasure.

One more nostalgic image:

What Are You Signaling By Your Sport of Choice?

This is meant to be primarily tongue-in-cheek, but if the shoe fits...

• Football - I am in the tribe of macho
• Basketball - I am a socialite sports fan
• Soccer - I am worldly and sophisticated
• Baseball - I am in love with Americana and yearn for the ways of the past
• Golf - I am elitist (by desire/choice or caste)
• Hockey - I am accepting of violence to solve problems
• NASCAR - I am intolerant
• Formula 1 - I am tolerant, no really, I swear I am
• Horse racing - I am superstitious
• Boxing and MMA - I am accepting of violence as an ends in itself
• Wrestling - I am in the true tribe of macho
• Tennis - I am a true socialite sports fan
• Olympics - I am a fan of theater

I don't know enough to hazard a guess on these: Cricket, Rugby (probably the same as American football), Field Hockey, et al.

Partial List of Wax On Wax Off

Partial list of things I believe to be waxing and waning in the popular sense of moral, civilized taste. To be clear morality is not determined by vote. And also notice this is not a list of things peak/not peak. This is more a prediction of long-term trending.

Waxing: 

• Marijuana
• Basketball (as a share of sports-fan attention)
• Virtue signalling to strangers through condemnation (you shouldn't do this or believe that)

Waning: 

• Factory farming/eating animals/hunting
• Tobacco
• Football
• NCAA student-athlete amateurism
• Fossil fuel energy (both superficial (electric cars are ~25% coal cars) and actual)

Can Trump Be The Solution To Trump?

As faithful readers know, I have been ambivalent on the Trump presidency. From the beginning I thought there were reasons to be optimistic and pessimistic on it. Those are proving fairly prescient in some cases, gratefully off in others:

Optimistic - Shows why we should lose (and should have lost a long time ago) our reverent awe for the U.S. Presidency; prevents major government action/intervention/meddling on any number of issues by being a circus act writ large (his administration's priorities will be prestige and showmanship rather than policy accomplishment); forces a meaningful debate and action on limiting executive power (a little bit in tension with the previous prediction as this one mitigates a Trump administration that is actually trying to do something).

Pessimistic - Engages in major international war actions (beyond the high amount the each of his opponents would do anyway); sets back trade freedom and immigration substantially; creates strong racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and gender divides.

I have expanded on this upon Trump taking office and one-year in. Part of my analysis has been optimism that Trump will bring sanity to how we look upon the U.S. presidency.

• Lost Respect for the Sanctity of the Office - yes this is a feature--let the scales fall from your eyes, the emperors have never been well dressed. But . . .

A recent episode of the always rewarding Something's Off with Andrew Heaton featured Rob Montz discussing his excellent Trump as Destiny: Why the Reality Show Presidency Was Inevitable. This is a great piece that I hope gets as much traction as possible. It resonates with me. I hope it does so for others.

We've gone from George Washington supposedly declining the offer to be king (even if this is apocryphal, the fact that it is part of the legend strongly implies we at least once held this to be a virtue) through John Kennedy embracing the image of being our king to genuine concern that Trump would take us up on the offer.

The course of history has been decidedly against my vision for the U.S. presidency. What makes me think I should be optimistic about Trump changing that? Indeed that is a question that troubles me. I'm not sure I have a good answer. The source of my optimism has been based largely on Trump as such an extreme example of the problem that those in Congress would find it their own interest to change course and the American people would see the office (not just the man who happens to be occupying it) as run amok. Unfortunately, our growing tribalism thwarts this on both sides--many or most Democrats don't allow themselves to see a connection between the office and this president and many or most Republicans don't allow themselves to admit there is a problem at all. Somehow we need to make fear of Trump lead to limitations on the presidency going forward.

I think Trump certainly could legitimately be impeached, and I would prefer this if it was at least neutral to the bigger hope that Trump will significantly erode presidential power and image. I fear it would not be constructive to that larger goal. Once he is out, the problem is "solved", and we are back to business as usual. Of course, we have that same problem in an election of a new president in 2020 or (more likely not until) 2024, but at least then there would not be the cleansing event that allows continued blindness to the bigger problem.

Here is my curve-ball solution: Get Trump to bring the limits we want. He can't make us think less of the office. We have to do that on our own if we are willing to take the red pill. But he can put into place strong limits on what his successors may do. Why would he do such a thing? Because he is vain and doesn't believe anyone else can be trusted with power. The best prospect of this might be as a 2024 election approaches and a Democratic victory looks imminent. Perhaps then a Republican-lead Congress brings strong legislation to Trump's desk and the lame duck sings a wonderful swan song.

Unlikely? Probably about as likely as Kim Kardashian and Kanye West getting Trump to enact criminal justice reform.

I Know Why Dracula Is So Rich

Before we can understand why Dracula is so rich, we need to understand why investments make money at all. Why isn't the current price simply the sum of all future returns? Well, because future returns are uncertain. A business venture might be profitable. Money lent might be returned. And the investor might be around (alive and well as today) to collect when the future return is available. Hence, an investor needs to be compensated for the risk that the investment will not generate a return and for the risk the investor cannot use the invested funds as well in the future as today.

I am positing that uncertainty is the single (the one and only) source of financial investment return above the time-value of money (TVM). Assuming we all have an identical time preference, which we do not, the time-value of money can be summarized as a single discount rate, an annual compound interest rate. Let's set the discount rate to 3% whereby $100 today is equal to $103 in one year, $106.09 in two years, and 1.03^n into perpetuity. To any degree that there is uncertainty about collecting the future investment, one would require a premium to the discount rate--an increase in it to compensate for risk (e.g., 3% becomes, say, 5%, which would be 3% for TVM plus 2% for risk). I realize "discount" is counterintuitive, but understand that it simply means discounting a future amount to be equal to a value in present terms. 

One way to get rich is to have a discount rate (a time-value of money) less than 3%—like say 2%. Then getting someone to pay you 3% in one year’s time is like getting paid almost 1.5 year’s interest in a single year since you only require 2%. It wouldn’t take much leverage (or much time) to make this a very real and very big get-rich-quick (or eventually) plan. 

Another way to get rich is to have less uncertainty about the future--the mythical crystal ball. Even if it is cloudy, it plus what everyone else (the market) knows is better than only what everyone else knows. 

This dawned on me when I was listening to Jason Wiser's retelling of Bram Stoker's Dracula (Dracula: The Night King (part 3 of 3), specifically about the 35:21 mark). Because he is an immortal monster, Dracula can simply wait out any temporary problems--go to sleep for forty years as those who hunt him age and die. Now, think about Dracula's time preference for money or anything else. He plays the loooong game. He doesn't need to consume now and can let his wealth work for him quite easily--decade-long naps allow for very deferred consumption. Relative to mortals, he has a very, very low discount rate because his time horizon is astronomically longer and uncertainty from his perspective is much, much lower. 

What are the implications for us in the non-fictional, mortal universe? Tyler Cowen's Stubborn Attachments wrestles with this concept (confession: I have not read it yet, but I have purchased it, intend to read it, and have listened to approximately 3.79 trillion podcasts of him discussing it). As I understand it, he argues for a discount rate of 0% thereby valuing the future as equal to the present. In such a framework at the individual level you would not be paid a premium for deferring consumption. However, I believe he is proposing this at the societal level and more as a framework for policy making. A conclusion this leads to is generally favoring growth as the primary goal/aspiration for social policy.

What about implications for investors? Individuals are not immortal; so unless you are planning a trip to Transylvanian, you better continue to demand compensation for deferred consumption (TVM) and some premium for risk being taken.

What about endowments and foundations? I would propose they are not nearly as much like Dracula as they would like to be--in the time horizon and uncertainty dimensions. I won't at this time accuse them of having other Dracula-like qualities (fodder for a future "shots fired" post perhaps). These entities have current and continual demands for withdrawals. An X% annual spending policy and a collection of interested parties with very different perspectives strongly challenges any argument for a lower discount rate. The foundation as a concept may theoretically have an infinite time horizon, but its donors, beneficiaries (both current and near-future ones), and employees do not. At the very least it will be difficult for them to think and act as if there is an infinite time horizon when they should (deferring consumption in tough times) and rather easy for them to do so when they shouldn't (assuming future growth will solve all current shortcomings). 

Lastly, what about governments? Well, should they really expect to be around into perpetuity? How many can reasonably expect this? So far at least technically the success stories number zero. (Perhaps another future post expanding on this question and applying to foundations as well.) I will grant that governments in a practical sense to a degree (magnitude matters) can assume very long time horizons borrowing against the future. It will work just fine until it doesn't. Given enough splinters (growth-hampering regulations, inflation, entitlement promises, etc.) you'll eventually have a wooden stake. Governments may aspire to be Dracula (see below), but they face many, many obstacles in getting there. 

This brings us to a Partial List of why governments are like vampires:

1. The light of day is toxic to their way of behaving.
2. Taxes = blood.
3. They can seduce with their promises.
4. They create captured minions whose self interest becomes subservient and aligned to the master's.
5. We trust them blindly at our peril.
6. They are incapable of looking themselves in the mirror.

The Best Defense is . . .

The game of football has changed in the couple decades in a fundamental way. Nowhere is this more acutely witnessed than in the college game. And perhaps no team more demonstrates the odd juxtaposition than the Oklahoma Sooners.

Last year Oklahoma had a very poor defense looking at the traditional statistics. While these do not outright lie, they also do not tell the full picture. Oklahoma played in a league with very good and innovative offenses. And Oklahoma itself had one of the all-time great offenses last year. Their yards per play and points per play, to name just two meaningful statistics, were at near record levels. Keep in mind that historically most teams who have touched the type of numbers Oklahoma put up last year did so playing lower-tier opponents. In contrast Oklahoma played in one of the tougher conferences (those who find this to be a controversial statement ignore results and are caught up in old-world expectations of what football "should" look like), and they competed in the college football playoff against an exceptionally good Alabama team. The Oklahoma offense was Platonic while the Oklahoma defense was non-Platonic beyond all recognition.

While the Sooners are the extreme case, this combination of great offense and bad defense (albeit not necessarily on the same team) is a growing phenomenon throughout the sport. Teams with "old-world" offenses fail to reach the pinnacle within their leagues cough...Michigan... and teams with "old-world" defenses such as, sadly for me, Oklahoma look like two entirely different teams between when they possess the ball and when they do not. This resulted in Oklahoma parting ways with its defensive coordinator, Mike Stoops, after a disappointing loss to Texas mid season (in case you don't know, firing a coordinator mid season in what is otherwise a very promising season is a very rare event). After scrambling to fill the gaps to finish the year, Oklahoma has cleaned house bringing in a promising and perhaps innovative group to run the defense.

So far this is just me discussing my rather unremarkable and unoriginal observations. While I absolutely do not claim to have the answers, I think I do have an advanced framework for discovering the solution. Here we go...

To restate the premise: Defensive strategies and tactics desperately need to evolve since offenses have evolved at a much more rapid pace and in a more dynamic way for some time now.

Defense has a chance to catch up before offenses figure out that they don’t have to punt every time on 4th down. If offenses figure that out and continue to innovate in other ways, defenses are screwed. Case in point, offensive production is up remarkably over the past 19 seasons (2000 vs 2018). Across all FBS-division college football teams the average production is up meaningfully in the categories of yards per play (11%), points per play (14%), and points per game (12%). Maybe it is too late for defense?

Assuming this is not a lost cause, let's focus on a solution. The key is to be disruptive. Yes, that has always been the key. It’s just that the strategy of how to achieve that has changed over time. Back when running the football was the dominant offensive strategy, defenses needed to try to limit offenses to about 3 yards per play. Achieving that play in and play out is much more difficult today. Limit an opponent to a gain of 2 yards twice in a row (creating 3rd and 6), and you just don't feel like down and distance is on your side. A crude but probably telling stat: In the 2000 season just 10 teams went the season averaging gaining over 6 yards per play. In 2018 46 teams did.

Defensive strategy seems to have fallen into a losers games where defenses are trying to be very safe and limiting every play relying on the offense eventually making a mistake. "Just don't get beat deep..." goes the saying. The problem is offenses don’t take as many iterations (plays) to score as they used to, and they are more explosive. Hence, they don’t need to be as steadily productive as they did in the past.

Defensive strategy has to shift the probability back in its favor. The key is to increase volatility which increases disruption. If you will more likely eventually give up a score (and this is increasingly the case for all teams in nearly all situations), you might as well give it up right away having taken a big chance to stop it. Simply put: Just get the ball back--create failure or fail fast. Second and 11 is not as difficult for an offense to overcome as it was in the past. Likewise, defenses need to realize that second and 2 is not as bad a position to be in as it once was. Defenses need strategies and tactics that increase the probability of turnovers and tackles for large losses at the cost of increasing the probability of giving up meaningful offensive yardage gains and scores. The defensive mindset needs to begin with the assumption that everything is four-down territory--don't assume an offense will punt except in the most dire of positions.

A critical next step is to think terms of making an offense have as difficult a time scoring as possible regardless of what they do in trying to score. Defenses need to push offenses into making high-risk, low-reward decisions. Lowering an offenses chances of success is not entirely enough. Defenses must make offenses choose lower payout expected values. Think about an analogy with basketball. If defenses had their way, they would make offenses shoot every shot within a zone that is within about 0-5 feet inside the three point line. What is the football equivalent?

The most disruptive defense one could imagine from an NFL fantasy lineup would perhaps be the five best pass-rushing defensive linemen and six players among the strongest defensive backs or fastest linebackers. Notice that I am not saying the best run-stopping defensive linemen or the fastest defensive backs (cornerbacks or safeties) or the biggest linebackers. This group is going to blitz (send a disproportionate number of players rushing toward the quarterback) nearly every play. The remaining players are going to attempt to shut down the quarterback's options. What would it look like in result? Lots of small yardage given up, painful amounts of big plays given up, but all at the benefit of relatively many great defensive outcomes (turnovers, big yardage losses, etc.). Of course, that is a fantasy team. But perhaps we can get close to that by selecting for players in those molds and for plays in that fashion. Consider an analogy from baseball. There is a reason The Shift has become very popular--it shifts leverage in favor of the defense in a number of ways.

Why so aggressive--blitzing and otherwise? Start by thinking about how a defense is going to stop various types of plays used against it. Consider the most impactful offensive play, a deep pass down the field for either a touchdown or a very large gain. The first, best way to stop the play is to prevent the quarterback from throwing it in the first place. The second, best way to do it is to stop him from throwing it well while at the same time disrupting the receiver running the route. The third, best (worst) way is to have a defensive back covering the receiver being thrown to attempt to break up the play at the point of the catch. This holds not just for the deep pass but for all passes down the field. And by extension of the logic it holds for all plays.

Think about a running play. Where does the defense most want to attempt to stop a run? At or before the runner even begins, which would be in the offensive backfield. If the runner gets free for 9 yards as compared to 8 yards, the difference is very minimal. If the runner goes for 20 yards or 15 yards, again the difference is minimal. I am not saying it is not a big deal to give up large rushing plays. I am saying a combination of negative yardage running plays (-1 to -4, say) and positive, larger yardage running plays (9 to 20, say) is preferable to consistently yielding 3 to 8 yards each run. Don't try to make the offense fail small each down. Just one large failure (a turnover or a big loss on 3rd down or a big loss on 1st or 2nd down greatly reducing the offense's play options ) would be enough to allow the defense to win the drive.

The essence of my philosophy is a shift in the risk/reward and, hence, outcome dispersion for each defensive play and set of plays in a drive. Great defense should be torturous to watch for both teams' fans. For the offense and its fans it will look unpredictable and threatening--at any moment it might end the drive. For the defense's fans it will look unpredictable and haphazard--at any moment it might give up a score. Note the classic fan pessimism at play in both cases.

I admittedly do not have all the answers for how difficult it is to coach defense in football today. I just am on the lookout for the next innovators who I think will employ strategies and tactics very different from what has worked before. 

'Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff' - 2018 New Year's Resolution fulfillment post

What better time to wake up from my no-blogging slumber than with the annual fulfillment of my perpetual New Year's resolution?

I used to strongly believe that “real-world” experience as a substitute for learning through formal study was over rated. There are two significant ways I have changed my mind. I now believe:

1. Most learning done in school is learning in name alone. For the vast majority of people very little is truly understood and retained much less applied in life.
2. Because of biases, failure to update/challenge conventional wisdom, poor feedback loops, and long cycles for knowledge updating, there is a chasm between the received wisdom and truth--what we could/should know but basically do not.

Bryan Caplan’s work as summarized in his book brought me around. This one has some irony. I probably shouldn’t be surprised that an esoteric, theoretical academic would be the one to set me free since my bias was built upon a disdain and rejection of those who (I still believe) unduly criticize and dismiss book/school learning and “theory”. I still highly value idealistic university education (at least in theory). I just now understand that experience in the world has much, much more value and applicability than I used to give it credit.

And it is not just that getting one's hands dirty learning by doing should be on equal footing. For most (see point #1 above) it is by far the primary way one should gain knowledge and wisdom and skills.

This change in view was for me a long time developing. As I remember it, the first major salvo came from Charles Murray when I read this piece. Caplan just pushed me from agnostic to full-blown evangelist.

Partial List: Twin Peaks - Wax & Wane

Partial list of peaks...

Some I predict we are in (or recently passed):

• Garage, driver, and long-haul truck driver
• Oil, et al. price
• Professional stock picker
• Bank (traditional) - regulation and innovation are to "blame"
• Farm (agricultural land use) - see here & here
• Storage unit

And some I predict we are not:

• Local truck driver and this
• Oil, et al. quantity
• Index investing (true, pure passive even without the growth of factor-based, which is active)
• Bond price - relatively low rates as far as the eye can see
• Reality TV
• Zoning - the Complacent Class isn't done yet "protecting" us from new ideas and FOOL is all about
• Authenticity - the desire for this is just building and its continued strength is evidenced by the concern so many have that it is going away.

Forgiving and/or Forgetting

We live in interesting times. The scandals du jour are amplified in scope unlike in times past. This time is different not because we have scandals, but because the cycle is shorter, more intense, and much more wide spread. In many ways this is healthy--for instance in bringing about greater awareness and fuller cleansing. But in other ways it is unhealthy--for instance in progressing too rapidly for a deeper, more nuanced understanding and reconciliation.

Swift justice can be satisfying for victims, but it can also be incomplete ("Ah, good, we found the evil and dealt with it. All is now right with the world. No need to worry about 'that' again.") or it can be too widely applied ("Upon further inspection, all of the out group is guilty and we don't have time or need to gauge sinfulness; therefore, destroy them all." or "Upon further inspection, we are all guilty; therefore, let's just forget the whole thing and move along.")

Our social norms are evolving, which effectively means society is moving the goalposts on what we define as misconduct, injustice, harm, etc. This evolution is for the overwhelming most part rightful.  But now because of our technology our memories are longer and voices are stronger. I don't think we have yet fully appreciated this power or its ability to inflict damage. 

Consider the coordination of forgive and forget. This old adage was never more than an aspirational hope. I am very appreciative for how many of my past transgressions have been forgotten. I am even more thankful for all those that have been forgiven. The unfortunate truth is that forgiveness is less durable and more expensive than forgetfulness.

Here is my view on how we fit into forgive and forget.

And it is important to understand the implications . . .

The State of Sooner Football

About nine months ago I began writing this post in rough form following a pair of painful and disappointing losses to begin the 2016 Sooner football season. I refined it a bit about midway through the season, but as prospects were improving, I put it back on the shelf not wanting to post something that seemed too critical during a season-comeback effort. The post is more about the long run trend than the short run noise (good or bad). With today's news it seems appropriate to consider the thought experiment...

Bob Stoops has chosen to retire. His contributions to OU have been tremendous. I am and always have been a very strong fan and supporter of Stoops--at times perhaps an apologist. I will miss him being on my team's sideline. He reawakened The Monster. He was an innovator. On the field and off the field he pursued and achieved excellence. Looking back at his tenure it is easy to pine for what could have been. But the fair reflection would be to consider that it is only because of what did happen are we as fans in a position to regret what could have been--his leadership brought OU to such heights that we could see mountain tops yet to climb. [sappy but true]

Here is the post I originally started last football season; the strong finish to the 2016 season, sadly Bob Stoops last, caused me to revise my priors somewhat...

Starting with the premise that OU's expectations of championship-level football have not been met during the last 8 years (2009-2016); what is the explanation? 

Make no mistake about it, the past 8 years have been at a VERY high level of success--what 95% of teams would consider completely satisfying and what >50% of teams could never dream of: 

• 81-24 overall record--77%.
• 5-3 bowl record (bowl game every year including 4 major bowls).
• 1 national championship competed for (lost to Clemson in semifinals).
• 4 conference titles; competitive (my view) 5 of 8 years (50%!!! but against a debilitated league).
• Record breaking performances by both the team and individuals including several players competing for top national awards--the Heisman among them. (My views on the Heisman reflect why this is an after thought in this list.)

Yet the prior 10 years were stronger: 

• 109-24 overall record--82%.
• 4-6 bowl record (bowl game every year including 7 major bowls).
• 4 national championships competed for (won against Florida St.; lost to LSU, USC, and Florida).
• 6 conference titles; competitive 9 of 10 years (60%!!! against a very tough league)
• Even more record breaking performances and quite a few more awards won including two Heismans, FWIW.

The records are both great and quite close except for the nuance that OU's contention for titles (national and conference) was much stronger. 

So, given the premise, I can think of three possibilities and two alternatives:

1. The Sooners have simply been unlucky the past 8 years.

2. They were lucky in the beginning of the Stoops era (the first 10 years before the last 8 years) and the ability to reach OU's lofty expectations simply was never there.

3. They were up to fulfilling expectations at the beginning of the Stoops era but now they have faded in capabilities (the game as passed them by).

Alternatively we could say:

4. The premise is bad because they actually have been competing at a championship level--just less completely as might be possible/desired (i.e., too few championships achieved).

5. The expectation was faulty (i.e., they shouldn't expect to compete at a championship level).

I hope for 1, fear 2, and slightly suspect 3, but I highly suspect 4 and strongly reject 5. That puts me in possibility 1 assuming the premise and alternative 4 if I can question it.

Assuming the premise, my guess is about 70% of all Sooner fans fall into possibility 1, about 10% fall into 2, and about 20% fall into 3. But these answers would have been significantly different if looked at right after the loss to Ohio State and a 1-2 start to the 2016 season.

 

Allowing for the alternatives, I would then guess that the assignment of Sooner fans would be about like this:

Possibility	% of Fans
1	50%
2	7%
3	18%
4	20%
5	5%

The fans that don't jump from possibility 1 to possibility 4 once we allow the questioning of the premise probably have unrealistic expectations--they think their team should ALWAYS win. I am tempted to dismiss these folks as fans who think the winning team "just wanted it more". I am tempted to dismiss fans who jump to possibility 5 (presumably from possibilities 2 or 3) as fans who would be happier rooting for a much lesser team so as to increase the emotional gain from a win and decrease the emotional pain of a loss (i.e., no true Sooners).

All fans will make their own evaluations over the course of the Lincoln Riley era, though, probably not with the formality I bring to the matter. And the measure will be how does that era match up to all 18 amazing years under Stoops. I wish Bob the best and thank him for the happiness he brought me as a fan.

I wish Lincoln luck. I fully expect that he has what it takes to keep the Sooners' status as a contender, but satisfying The Monster takes more than ability. It takes luck.

Boomer Sooner!

Presidential Optimistic/Pessimistic Outlooks

We are on the cusp of phase two of the great American game: Who Wants To Spend A Million Million Dollars?

Phase one, you might remember, is when every third American denies he or she is running for office and then promptly announces they'll give it a go.

Phase two is the more sensible phase where a small collection of obscure states get to pick who will make it to the more substantially populated states who will then determine who makes it to the finals.

Phase three is the finals where two nearly identical twins argue about trivia while basically agreeing they like good things, are against bad things, and have a vision of how to either "keep us on course for greatness" or "turn it all around to restore greatness" depending on if people are happy or upset in general.

Let's run down the current leading contenders to see what the optimistic case and the pessimistic case is for each (from my point of view, of course). Keep in mind these are scenarios where optimistic and pessimistic are generally but not necessarily mutually exclusive (we could get some of both).

Trump:

Optimistic - Shows why we should lose (and should have lost a long time ago) our reverent awe for the U.S. Presidency; prevents major government action/intervention/meddling on any number of issues by being a circus act writ large (his administration's priorities will be prestige and showmanship rather than policy accomplishment); forces a meaningful debate and action on limiting executive power (a little bit in tension with the previous prediction as this one mitigates a Trump administration that is actually trying to do something).

Pessimistic - Engages in major international war actions (beyond the high amount the each of his opponents would do anyway); sets back trade freedom and immigration substantially; creates strong racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and gender divides.

Overall - I estimate the optimistic possibilities are more likely than the pessimistic possibilities. 

Cruz:

Optimistic - Is a strong ally of free trade in goods and services with a relatively good view on immigration; offers a serious challenge to some aspects of cronyism like ethanol subsidies, the Ex-Im Bank, and Net Neutrality; promotes a less interventionist military policy on balance; gets meaningful progress on tax reform. 

Pessimistic - Fails to get past a vision of a secured border leaving immigration policy languishing; allows military spending and engagements to grow substantially; uses executive power to similar ends as Obama and Bush. 

Overall -  Pessimistic are slightly more likely than optimistic.

 Rubio:

Optimistic - Advances immigration freedom substantially (this would be a major political advance for the GOP helping its demographic problem); promotes free trade well; gets meaningful progress on tax reform.

Pessimistic - Engages in major international war actions while strengthening government surveillance; extends the actions of executive power in defiance and weakening of the Constitution; proves that just as a he could be bought as a Florida politician (e.g., Big Sugar) he can be bought in the White House (i.e, cronyism). 

Overall - Optimistic are slightly more likely than pessimistic. 

Clinton:

Optimistic - Creates an era of gridlock not seen since the first Clinton administration keeping government at bay; allows for meaningful immigration progress; allows the drug war to recede while not actively doing much to bring about its demise.

Pessimistic - Engages in major international war actions while strengthening government surveillance; dreadfully extends the actions of executive power in defiance and weakening of the Constitution; makes good on her technocratic promise to bring government involvement to new realms while deepening it in familiar places.

Overall - Pessimistic are more likely than optimistic.

Sanders

Optimistic - Allows meaningful retreat in the drug war; sets back the cause of socialism by giving it power and identity; greatly reduces military involvement and spending while curtailing government surveillance; produces government sclerosis by getting lost in the wilderness of the endless desire to "do something" about each and every apparent malady.

Pessimistic - Gives power and identity to socialism in policy; accelerates greatly the growth of government spending; sets back free trade and immigration; creates new social divides and fosters greater identity politics.

Overall - Optimistic are slightly more likely than pessimistic.

What does it all mean at this point? Not much. Remember phase three... But for what it's worth, I would like to see a Cruz vs. Sanders finals. However, if we extend the field some (but unfortunately not enough to include Rand Paul), my preference among the awful alternatives is Bush vs. Sanders (this is definitely a minimax analysis).

Make no mistake about it. Each of these people would be horrible presidents when judged against the standards of liberty and the Constitution. But what else is new?

P.S., Sorry for all the parentheses.

The Tourist's Perspective

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.

--Mark Twain

Something I've been thinking about is how regular, routine life is a constant business trip for most of us. Yet it doesn't have to be. When we are truly on a leisure vacation, we can let go and detach. At least that is what we should be able to do.

Some are better at it than others. Some travel with a sense of obligation to see the things they are supposed to see and an expectation that the world owes them something. Those with this attitude tend to be miserable whether on the holiday road or not. For them the answer to 'how much does it cost?' is always 'how much do you got?'

Others take a healthier perspective viewing travel as a quest for fun. To unwind, explore, and grow--spiritually, mentally, physically. There is no reason to limit this quest and this mindset to the 10 days a year you sleep away from home. Sure the world can be hot and dangerous, but it is also amazingly rewarding.

I think taking on what I call the tourist's perspective opens up the world and frees one's mind. In that way anywhere we are becomes Disneyland for us. Chicago, for example, is a staged adventure set up for us, provided we don't live in Chicago or have significant ties to there. What I am suggesting is that we take that ethos and apply it to our constant travels through all of life. Chicago should be stunning to everyone including the most serious Chicagoan.

A good tourist is an observer who assumes the world is working fine without him; perhaps he can contribute and improve, but he treads lightly. When he sees something he doesn't understand, he first assumes it is correct and he is confused. He is a enthusiastic student and a reluctant teacher. The model is more like Anthony Bourdain rather than Christopher Columbus. Read this and understand that it is not just advice for how to see Europe--it is advice on how to see life.

In the tourist's mindset we don't take anything too seriously, we're more willing to compromise and roll with the punches, and we aren't possessive; of course, this may mean we don't take full ownership of our actions. Like anything, it can be taken too far. We cannot live life constantly under the credo 'What Happens In Vegas Stays In Vegas . . . and everywhere is Vegas'. But you have to have a credo, and something closer to the tourist's mindset should guide us at home and abroad. I say, go for it!

The Bundle Is Dead

Advertising-financed, pushed, bundled-content media is quickly dying. For newspapers there are two critical truths: the medium has changed (newsprint is now online), and (much less understood in the industry) the nature has changed (one-way production and distribution of "the news" from one to many is no longer reality). The second point is the more important. We now can have access in depth to a much, much wider array of news and it is a two-way channel, "a conversation" in the words of BuzzMachine, that is many to many many times over. Often this is in a more raw, unrefined form. And it extends much beyond news into all aspects of media entertainment--it's not just Hildy Johnson that we're losing.

Before fretting that this is all a huge net loss, remember we used to have milk delivered to our doorstep--Those were the days! That was the cost-effective method, but it was a lot more expensive than milk is today. As markets evolve, the value propositions shift. There are always tradeoffs. More of everything for less cost is not ever a near-term option. So you shouldn't be surprised when to get the same channel lineup in a cord-cut world you have to pay as much or more than you pay today. Some of us are enjoying bundles that will not for long be profitable. This media trend began in earnest for print about 15 years ago. It began for radio about 10 years ago. And it began for television about 5 years ago, and it is accelerating.

Bundling was a natural and rewarding byproduct of economies of scale--falling average fixed costs created by mass production. But we are progressing past that part of economic growth into an era dominated by falling total fixed costs--Moore's Law has crossed a tipping point in magnitude. As that unfolds, we will continue to see the withering of business models singularly reliant on a combination of high fixed costs as a barrier to entry and the consequent economies of scale in production and marketing.

Highly Linkable

Terry Anderson is thinking sensibly about climate change. (HT: Don Boudreaux)

Speaking of Don Boudreaux, he has a fantastic new series of videos out as part of MRUniversity's "Everyday Economics" series. I highly recommend these short, extremely well-made videos.

Steve Landsburg points out an amazing physical-world derivation of pi. Here is the full paper. I don't suggest you pull this little nugget out the next time you're gambling, Eddie, gambling money on pool games, but it is pretty cool. Aside from being impressed by this myself, I think it demonstrates something about political economy. It is understandable that because brilliant people can discover truths like this other people believe brilliant people can discover the truths about how to govern other (not-so-brilliant) people's lives.

Two from Megan McArdle: In the first she offers an explanation as to why so many people are saving too little (AKA, building too much personal debt). In the second she talks about the social media frenzy surrounding the Supreme Courts' Hobby Lobby decision and how the calls of BOYCOTT! are very unlikely to actually succeed. This supports a thesis I have had about how the world has changed. To wit: Cults and cult leaders are less likely today while riots are more likely. Negative, tipping-point events can be blown out of portion and escalated more easily today, but they're not as long-lasting and sustainable as they were in the past. In the past information restriction, a critical tool of the cult, was much more easily accomplished. Hence, it is easier to incite a mob, but harder to inspire a movement.

I plan on reading the new book The Frackers: The Outrageous Inside Story of the New Billionaire Wildcatters and this recent EconTalk encouraged my excitement for it. But John Tamny at Forbes raises a few negatively critical points that are worth considering.

Vintage Photos:
Moscow in 1968
Street scenes of NYC in the 60s and 70s
More street scenes of NYC in the 70s
Other color photos of NYC in the 70s
Besides being very cool to look back at these places and people in the past, there is something I notice--more evidence against the Great Stagnation theory. For one we can see some stark differences between life back then and modern life in these cities. The second is a bit more subtle. In the previous era the USSR could appear to compete with the USA economically (e.g., having a large number of cars, the world's biggest X, etc.). In the current era the shortcomings are too obvious. Life today in the USA is filled with so many creature comforts available to so many of us, that in the comparison we rightfully consider Moscow as the capital of a undeveloped economy.

Communication Breakdown

I have been thinking lately about steps one can take to advance the cause of liberty. Early July is an appropriate time for this type of thinking, but there is never a wrong time. I'm thinking about small steps rather than a stairway to heaven, and it probably has to begin with how we converse with those we seek or should be seeking to win over.

With a nod to Arnold Kling's Three Languages of Politics, most of our efforts to communicate with our ideological adversaries float like a lead balloon. Libertarian arguments often strike conservatives and progressives as poison by reinforcing their respective fears of barbarism and oppression. Allow me to propose some antidotes. Please note that these are antidotes with limitations. The conservative so afflicted as to be a moral crusader and the progressive so burdened as to be against private property are beyond this proposal's reach.

For conservatives the narrative needs to focus on responsibility. We should show how people should be treated as responsible to make decisions for themselves regarding issues like drug use, gambling, and marriage. The responsibility angle already works for conservatives when considering issues like welfare--an able-bodied person should be ultimately responsible for his own well being and individuals should be responsible for charity. We can extend that framework to include other issues. An adult should have the responsibility to decide for himself what chemicals to put in his body, when to engage in games of chance, and who to partner with in marriage.

For progressives the narrative needs to focus on empowerment. We should show how people should be empowered to have more choice in where to send their kids to school, greater flexibility in the terms of their employment, and more options in how to save for retirement. Specifically, we need to show how our favored policy responses will help the most vulnerable.

While these techniques will not work on all issues (at least not in isolation), they may well advance the effort on many important issues.

cross posted at Liberty.me

Three Points On Knowledge

1. Over Representation:

Think about when we offer our knowledge and opinions (and conjectures) on a particular topic for which we are not an expert--in other words, 99% of our daily dialogue. It would be interesting if the social norm would be to conclude by saying, "And that is the extent of my knowledge on this subject." Some people, of which I am one, are of the personality type that they feel compelled to share everything they know about a subject when discussing it. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it can create the false illusion that we know more than we actually do--that there are even more gems left in the bag rather than that's all, folks!

I've been trying to make an effort to be more explicit about the limits of what I know, and I plan to work harder to that end.

2. "I Don't Know"

"I don't know"* is the almost always unacceptable response that is almost always the most correct answer. What happens after we die? There is but one correct answer scientifically speaking. You can believe one thing or another, but you do not know. 

IDK is nearly as applicable to all questions pre death. The complexity of our Universe, our economy, our own preferences leaves us generally in a state of darkness with just flickers of sporadic light. We should be more appreciative of this truth.

Yet humans have a universal thirst for certainty. Inquiring minds want to know. That is a good thing--it leads us to question and find answers and then question those answers to reveal deeper truths. I just wish we could be more honest about how true and virtuous the answer IDK is. If we were, it might minimize how thirst for certainty is also a bad thing. It is a big part of why we crave and succumb to authority. It is how con men can win over intelligent people. The investment community if full of people who refuse to say IDK. Politicians get roundly "defeated" in debates by even hinting at IDK. In business you might as well say "Fire me now".

Saying "I don't know" takes courage and wisdom, and so does acceptance of it as an answer.

3. Trust of Knowledge.

There are two extremes along the dimension of trust I am considering here. Those extremes are only trusting locals vs. locals are morons. I think people tend to fall toward one extreme or another, but they are not consistently at either end. Rather it varies topic to topic. The former extreme is driven by belief that only locals understand the circumstances whereas the latter is driven by knowing locals too well to know their flaws. Both reasoning are obviously faulty when at the extreme.

I see this thinking often in my profession, investment management. Some people are biased against a local firm managing their money preferring at least someone "smart" enough to be in Dallas or Chicago if not New York. Other people take the opposite approach and are very fearful of anyone from New York City! because "they will", of course, rob you blind.

Related (perhaps a bonus knowledge point): Margins of accepted error--how one's biases influence the margin of error one allows for cohorts who match versus cohorts who oppose one's views. Most ideas are bad ideas--impractical, plagued by substantially bad facts, and suffering from poor reasoning. Yet I think we cut our ideological brethren a lot of slack while being harshly critical of our opponents. We do something similar in business. If I trust locals, I give them a wider berth (and perhaps more financial leniency) than I do outsiders. If I think locals are fools, the hurdles I make them clear leave both of us poorer.

There are many ways we inconsistently apply margins of accepted error. Recognition and mitigation of these requires constant vigilance.

Keep thinking . . .

*There was a recent Freakonomics podcast on IDK. I thought it was good, not great. I hope the space they devote in their new book is a little more fulfilling.

Football vs Basketball vs Soccer

Indulge me for a moment while I think a bit about the differences between these sports.

While there are plenty of fans of all three of these sports, I'm interested in thinking about why some people are strong fans of one or two but not all three. I believe quite a few people fit into this interest group. What about baseball and hockey? We'll get to that in a moment. Personally, I find football fascinating, basketball highly interesting, and soccer mildly entertaining. Wondering why got me to thinking . . .

I believe varying appreciation for these three sports ultimately comes down to a different appreciation for the marginal score--that is, the incremental or additional score. Soccer scoring is too infrequent to produce a sufficiently large enough fan interest from the marginal score alone. If you're watching soccer, it must be for more than just the occasional scoring. Basketball is on the opposite end of the spectrum where scoring is too frequent to produce a sufficiently large enough fan interest. If you're watching basketball, you must be watching it for more than just the frequent scoring. Football is in the middle where the marginal score all by itself becomes a sufficiently large driver of interest.

For these reasons we have support for soccer being called "The Beautiful Game". In basketball on the other hand fans are not looking for the marginal score; instead they're looking for the sensational score. So in a given game whether there are few points scored or many, points won't be the driver of how interesting it is the typical fan. The driver will be how many sensational plays there are from dunks to three-pointers to amazing assists. In football virtually every scoring play is an amazing sensational play. Soccer shares this quality except soccer has way too few points scored.

So, one's appreciation for each sport will relate to how one values marginal scoring--the more one values a marginal score, looks forward to the actual next score to take place, the more one will enjoy football since it offers the most value from scoring itself. As one fades from that peak, it depends on what else they look for to enjoy spectating. If one values more the flow and the back and forth of the game, one is more attracted to soccer. If one values more the impact and style of actually scoring, one leans toward basketball. Looked at this way I see golf and baseball very much like football. I see hockey (obviously, 'soccer on ice') very much like soccer as are gymnastics and wrestling. I see boxing and tennis very much like basketball (think punches equaling baskets made). More parallels could be drawn. Looking at my interest personally shows the limits of this theory. I definitely like basketball more than baseball or golf even though the latter two's close cousin, football, is king for me; so there is surely more going on to determine who is a fan of what. And I am not forgetting that some people are strong fans of all three football, basketball, and soccer.

Remember that my major implication is what type of fan is attracted to each of the three sports. It's why basketball fans may find soccer boring and soccer fans may find basketball redundant. Soccer games are usually not as close as the score would seem to indicate, and basketball fans find this particularly confusing. A lead in basketball is usually not as secure as it would seem, and for this soccer fans are confused. A football game can have nothing sensational leaving basketball fans wanting. On the other hand a football game can be filled with plays that make it seem that one team is throwing the contest. These games with too easy of scoring leave soccer fans wanting.

PS. I don't know and I don't care where Quidditch falls in this analysis.

Everybody Talks

Listening to a recent Freakonomics Radio episode about gossip got me thinking about journalism and the perhaps unintended role it plays or has played in regulating society some. In the episode we first hear about research by Thomas Corley summarized in his book "Rich Habits" that showed the behavior differences between rich people and poor people. One of the differences he found was that the rich gossip significantly less than the poor. However, the rest of the episode tends to dispute that finding.

What stood out to me was how necessary the role of gossip seems to be for many aspects of society (e.g., norm setting and regulation) and how differently we approach and are affected by gossip. It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that the wealthy would have different gossip habits and methods than the poor. The rich have different tools--namely, they have journalism. Or at least they had it until those crazy kids started TweetBooking everything.

Here is a theory that probably isn't original to me. I am not completely sold on it myself; it's just a hunch that I think at least partially explains what we've seen.

The rich and powerful have traditionally exerted a lot of control and influence over news media. This part is not in dispute. The creation and growth of news media served two primary purposes: 1) it had an informative value (stock reports, political actions, etc.) and 2) it had an entertainment value (local celebrity news, sports, etc.). But the problem is aside from the cut and dried factual reporting like the price of wheat or the winner of the mayor's race, most news reports have some damaging aspect to them that someone would like to keep quiet. These could range political corruption to a juicy, high-profile divorce to, well, the price of wheat for the guy who is trying to buy at a market discount. When we get down to it, the fact that we have journalism and that the rich and powerful put up with it seems a bit of a puzzle.

So what explains journalism as we know it--journalism that reports the good, the bad, and the ugly for the most part about both the rich and the poor? I think game theory offers a solution. The idea is that journalism is a necessary evil. Basically the job description was artificially created because the role was needed more than it was wanted. This puts it at odds with the idea that journalists are noble superheroes with special investigative and truth-finding powers striving to do good--journalists aren't that special, just don't tell them that. Rather it is as if the rich sat down and played a quick game of MAD where they realized they needed a controlled outlet to realize the informative value and entertainment value of journalism but not have chaotic reporting where the message cannot be controlled. What's more journalism offers what I would call auditor-caused moral hazard--if the auditor doesn't catch it or correct it, then it must be okay. That is a useful if unintentional purpose.

Of course there was not some secret meeting on Jekyll Island where journalism was launched, and the early twentieth century's muckraking shows how different the market for journalism can play out than what the rich and powerful might otherwise like. However, it was some of the rich and powerful on the production side of muckraking. So, no; journalism was not centrally planned or created in the last 200 years. It is a very long-run emergent order. Yet being emergent does not preclude it from my game theory theory or isolate it from powerful guiding influences. I think that my theory well explains how it was nurtured and shaped. Or perhaps captured is the better term. When journalism emerges as powerful enough to threaten the elite, the elite appropriate it for themselves.

With some ebb and flow between a more pure journalism and a more controlled journalism, this all is going along nicely until the Internet comes along. Then chaos. The Internet causes major disruptions to this order by commoditizing the tools of journalism with blogging, smartphones, et al. flattening the business model. The elite did not have this in mind. If the journalists are "us", and all of us at that, then we, elites and all, have to be more honest. We can't control the message or information--at least that control is very greatly weakened. Journalism before served a purpose to tell a story, a version of the truth, to the masses as a few saw fit. Now journalism is telling many stories, many versions of the truth including many with higher truth value than before, to varying numbers of consumers as many see fit. And it is deeper than that. The story isn't so one directional. It is more and more a conversation.

The quickest way to wreck a game theory optimal solution is to change a premise. The Internet is just such a change to the game theoretic outcome that journalism had been for so long.