Attack and defence: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 34: Line 34:
Post script: spare a thought for poor old Olivier Giroud, substituted off after 40 minutes.<ref>“Seethed after humiliating early substitution but in truth the game had completely passed him by. 5” said the Guardian. “Slightly lucky at one point not to give away a penalty and so ineffective up front he did not make it to half-time. 5” opined the Express. “A miserable final for the former Arsenal man as he was subbed before half-time,” said the Express, before awarding the poor chap 3. ''L’Équipe'' was so outraged that it refused to rate him at all.</ref>
Post script: spare a thought for poor old Olivier Giroud, substituted off after 40 minutes.<ref>“Seethed after humiliating early substitution but in truth the game had completely passed him by. 5” said the Guardian. “Slightly lucky at one point not to give away a penalty and so ineffective up front he did not make it to half-time. 5” opined the Express. “A miserable final for the former Arsenal man as he was subbed before half-time,” said the Express, before awarding the poor chap 3. ''L’Équipe'' was so outraged that it refused to rate him at all.</ref>


===Extending the metaphor===
==Extending the metaphor==
Strikes us that this metaphor: of ''defence'' being judged by by consistent perfection, and ''attack'' being judged by momentary inspiration, translates. We wonder how closely this translates to finite and infinite games.  
Strikes us that this metaphor: of ''defence'' being judged by by consistent perfection, and ''attack'' being judged by momentary inspiration, translates. We wonder how closely this translates to [[Finite and Infinite Games|finite and infinite games]].  


===Investing===
===Investing===
It strikes us that betting on the consensus — in most times, that the market will rise, is defensive. Betting against it is attacking.  
It strikes us that betting on the consensus — in most times, that the market will rise, is defensive. Betting ''against'' it is attacking.  


Thus, those who bet on consensus are collecting pennies in front of the steamroller: returns are accretive, require patience, exposure and take ''time'': the risk of being “caught in possession” is a function of time exposure. The longer you must play, the greater your exposure. To benefit from the consensus you must play a long game. You are dependent on someone else scoring goals at the far end more quickly than you concede then at this end.
Thus, those who bet on consensus are collecting pennies in front of the steamroller: returns accrete, require patience, prolonged exposure and take ''time''. You are betting against a tail event: the risk of being “caught in possession” is a function of the ''time'' you have exposure. The longer your time horizon, the worse the odds of tail event happening. The longer you must play, the greater your exposure.  
 
To benefit from the consensus you must play a long game. Whether your strategy is a success of not depends on the rate at which you pick up pennies, compared with the rate at which you lose them in that tail event. In the same way, a football defence dependend on someone at the far end scoring goals more quickly than it concedes them at the near end.


Those who buy crash puts — or, as in the [[Redditors]]’ case, calls — are attackers. They cost a lot and, in ordinary times (against a competent defence), return nothing. They are paying their blind to be in the game, and expect in most cases to lose the small investment it represents. They are throwing pennies in front of a steamroller for others to pick up: they don't stand themselves to be run over, to the contrary, on those rare occasions when the defence fails and the steamroller flattens the rest of the market, they get to collect everyone else’s pennies. This will happen rarely: the key is to net more pennies in this haul than you have paid out in the mean time while things where hoopy.
Those who buy crash puts — or, as in the [[Redditors]]’ case, calls — are attackers. They cost a lot and, in ordinary times (against a competent defence), return nothing. They are paying their blind to be in the game, and expect in most cases to lose the small investment it represents. They are throwing pennies in front of a steamroller for others to pick up: they don't stand themselves to be run over, to the contrary, on those rare occasions when the defence fails and the steamroller flattens the rest of the market, they get to collect everyone else’s pennies. This will happen rarely: the key is to net more pennies in this haul than you have paid out in the mean time while things where hoopy.