Name: 熱い手」は本物？- 数字マニア (Is the "hot hand" real? - Numberphile)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:15:57.000Z
Duration: 19 min 48 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

現在進行形

We're talking about the hot hand and sports, particularly basketball.

過去形

We knew whoever was on a shooting streak should get the ball, because the chances are that they would make the next shot.

People are more likely to make a basket, given they made a whole street this week.

From a math perspective, hot hand usually means that you have a higher chance than usual of making a basket.

Given that you just made a whole bunch of in a row, I think about it.

You have some lifetime, si vous an average or some average for your game or some kind of base measurement.

And then all of a sudden you've made ah, whole bunch of shots.

Maybe you think the chances are that the next shot is gonna be a winner are higher than your baseline average because you've got confidence because you're doing great because you're throwing that ball well, that's the hot hand, your design.

And of course, it has implications for strategy, right, because if the guy's on a streak and if he's really doing better than his own usual.

You're more likely to want to feed that guy the ball.

In 1985 a team of three scholars, including famed psychologist Amos Diversity, published a study to professional teams were involved the Philadelphia 76 Years in the Boston Celtics and also some Cornell varsity and junior varsity players.

And what they did was something that scientists do a lot.

They looked in shot strings of hits and misses and asked the question from a statistical perspective.

So what they did specifically imagine you have a string with zeroes representing Mrs and one's representing hits, and you could look and see after a player or a team has made a bunch of shots.

Then say, after an equally long string of Mrs That's exactly what they did.

At first he was a very, very big basketball fan, so I'm sure he was brought his passion to the study.

But I think he was looking at the strings of zeros and ones and found no hot hand.

It's got thousands of citations, and it had two very interesting effects.

One was the non effect in the sporting industry.

Those who thought they knew better than scientists struck their shoulders.

And then there was the field of scholars who thought this was pretty interesting and started doing more studies.

Different teams, different time periods, different sports.

Literature launched 1000 academic ships but got a shrug of the shoulders from professional sports.

If you search for hot hand fallacy on the Web, you're gonna find tons of hits.

It's not universally agreed because, as usual, with a scientific experiment, there could be lots of different ways to do it.

Different days that could you use the bowl going in the basket?

You could use a different season or you could look for streaks in a different sport.

You always make a lot of choices in experiments, and it's easy to forget when you have a conclusion that your conclusion depends not just on the hypothesis you want to test, but also the way you implemented your experiment.

Josh Miller and Adam Sanders Oh, published a paper.

How did it different from the enormous literature on the subject In a really important way, it challenged the original result not by saying, Maybe we need a different experimental design.

Ah, hot hand should be in mathematics, It said.

These guys did their study wrong, so I was really stopped in my tracks when I saw this.

But the equivalent thing they made in addition, mistake or something.

It is like that, and especially when you consider a scholar of the importance of Amos Tversky.

So just a little background on her ski psychologist.

As I said, an Israeli psychologist, his partner of Daniel Kahneman, who went on to win the Nobel Prize for their joint work Diversity, died of melanoma in 1996 and did not then receive the price because it's not awarded posthumously.

But the work was all about how people make mistakes.

A connoisseur of human error And he, it seems, has made a mistake.

This gets to the question of the most basic kind of hypothesis.

So it always goes pretty much the same way.

There's a concept of the ordinary and statisticians, for better or worse, call this thing I know hypothesis, which may be off putting to some.

But while they mean is what's typical, put a metric of what's typical.

Or maybe it's whether you've just made an unusual, uh, your probability of making a shot is unusually high compared to a notion of typical.

And then you say, Well, there is there an effect or not?

And so there's a lot of art and science and deciding what ordinary means.

But the mistake that was found in this paper that singers oh and Miller noticed was in the concept of saying with the non hypothesis what the ordinary waas.

And it was particularly related to the fact that data, even though mathematicians like to think in terms of infinite strings or infinite number of observations or laws of large numbers very often or dealing in practice with small, finite samples of data and small stuff does not need to behave like big stuff.

If you see three things happen in a row, you think, Wow, maybe a trend.

Maybe the fourth one's gonna be going in a different direction, But we're very quick to find reasons for things to find trends to find.

Okay, so we know about this, and no one knew it better than Amos Tversky.

Ah, and yet Hey had a small sample of data and he treated that small sample along with his co authors, though it were an infinite set.

Maybe the best way to start is with coin flipping.

Okay, so this is like a toy example of the sort of thing they were doing.

Coin flips could be like hitting or missing shots, heads, tales, hits and misses.

Here's the kind of thing that we're thinking about because, after all, we're looking at the probability of making a shot, given that you've just made some shots or making a shot after you've just missed some shots.

So we want to look at what's happening after something else happens.

So we could play a game with a coin and we're gonna I think that we have a completely unbiased coin, 50% heads, 50% tails, and we're going to think that my flips of the coin are independent.

So what happens on the next flip has nothing to do with what happened on the previous flip or anything else in history.

We're gonna flip the coin three times and we're thinking we're looking for what happens after something.

I flipped the coin and then we're going to write down what happens after I flip ahead.

So if I flip tails we don't think about anything, then I flip the heads.

Then flip something else we write down in a Jiff.

If it's not heads, we're gonna do this three times.

And so the question is, what do we think before we do?