Ignoring the snide remark at the start
Actually, you've hit on the issues here.
Humans evolved to avoid lions on the savannah, they're built to understand a macroscopic world and biased towards detecting patterns which may not even exist. Mistakenly seeing the lion in the long grass is far better than mistakenly not seeing it - so we're predisposed to see patterns that may not be there. Luck is a manifestation of this, we see a pattern "player X is luckier" which doesn't necessarily exist.
Add to this that people remember events which are "significant" to them, so you'll remember winning (or loosing) a specific frame in a specific match 10 years ago because it was very significant to you for some reason, whereas I as your opponent might not - because it was less significant to me.
Likewise you'll remember a player having bad luck at the end of a frame near the end of a match, but not recall the same sort of luck at the start of the first frame of a match - because to your mind it holds less significance, when in fact it holds the same - the opponent wins the early frame, or wins the later frame, either way they win 1 frame more than you and it doesn't matter when it happens.
Sure, a player getting bad luck can drop his head, loose confidence and play worse.. or, he can shrug it off it's all about mental toughness - this is something the great players do all the time.
Murphy didn't "know" he was going to get another chance, that's not the way the world works. Getting 1 piece of good luck does not guarantee another piece of good luck - the two are not connected in any way. Believing this is a fundamental miss understanding of reality I'm afraid.
Selby won because he is a good player, who competes for everything and doesn't let a bad run of the balls get him down.
They're not luckier, they're simply better. If you're a better player then you don't need to rely on luck to win, if you're a worse player then you're always relying on luck somewhat. Better players don't have to be as lucky to win.
It might help them to believe this, but it's simply not true. Successful sports people are confident because they know deep down that they are good, simple as that. Confidence brings out your best performance, and if you're a better player you'll win, simple as that.
Originally Posted by cueman
View Post
Humans evolved to avoid lions on the savannah, they're built to understand a macroscopic world and biased towards detecting patterns which may not even exist. Mistakenly seeing the lion in the long grass is far better than mistakenly not seeing it - so we're predisposed to see patterns that may not be there. Luck is a manifestation of this, we see a pattern "player X is luckier" which doesn't necessarily exist.
Add to this that people remember events which are "significant" to them, so you'll remember winning (or loosing) a specific frame in a specific match 10 years ago because it was very significant to you for some reason, whereas I as your opponent might not - because it was less significant to me.
Likewise you'll remember a player having bad luck at the end of a frame near the end of a match, but not recall the same sort of luck at the start of the first frame of a match - because to your mind it holds less significance, when in fact it holds the same - the opponent wins the early frame, or wins the later frame, either way they win 1 frame more than you and it doesn't matter when it happens.
Originally Posted by cueman
View Post
Murphy didn't "know" he was going to get another chance, that's not the way the world works. Getting 1 piece of good luck does not guarantee another piece of good luck - the two are not connected in any way. Believing this is a fundamental miss understanding of reality I'm afraid.
Originally Posted by cueman
View Post
Originally Posted by cueman
View Post
Originally Posted by cueman
View Post
Comment