Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over

One way to think of the world is not good or bad but underrated or overrated. Switch from binary to fluid. 

Reading like a Bayesian is underrated. Jobs theory is underrated. Books are underrated. 

Think of Over/Underrated as a normal distribution. Only learning from books or never learning from books are bad. Each could “move up the curve”. 

Education, like financial literacy, as a solution is overrated.

Education is a “tight” solution. When my daughter was in elementary school she went to a speech therapist to work on her *th* sound. She had a cast to fix a broken arm. Her volleyball coach helps her with footwork. These are “tight” solutions that fit the larger set. 

Drunk driving advertisements like “drive sober or get pulled over” is another tight solution. 

But it’s wrong. It doesn’t fit the larger set of circumstances. 

A “wider” approach is to think not about drinking but about driving. 

The public could subsidize a ride-share happy hour. If people leave home without their car they can’t return home with it. Or, use the marketing money to pay for random rides. 

Another option is to change where bars are built. If it’s easy to walk or hard to park, people won’t drive.

Gamblers can “self exclude” themselves from casinos. Can insurance companies offer a drink driving equivalent? Let people save 5% while committing their sense of self?

Education is overrated because it’s linear, rigid, and two-dimensional. If X is good, do more of it. If X is good, the opposite is bad. 

Not necessarily. 

Related: using ambiguity aversion to hint at punishments.

Addendum: Because overrated and underrated are fluid and because times change, the overrated can become underrated.

Morey thinking like Marks

It looks like Daryl Morey is thinking like Howard Marks. But, he probably always has.

On the Wharton Moneyball podcast, Eric Bradlow talked through why the Houston Rockets might think playing “five guys a large number of minutes that are all six-seven to six-four” to end the season and into the playoffs was a good idea.

At first this seems like a mistake.

Basketball has defined positions. Point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward, center. We’ve always done it this way.

Oops.

That expression is a red flag. Instead we should think from first principles, which is what Bradlow and co-hosts Adi Wyner and Shane Jensen do. If the Rockets play shorter players that don’t fit the traditional mold, what will happen. Bradlow summarized:

“Given they’re shooting threes and the higher variance of the rebounds, a lot more balls hit the floor because it’s not just dropping straight down so you might want faster players who can get to the ball quickly.” (though maybe not)

“And now you’re getting the other team to possible take less threes. That’s a good thing about the Rockets.” (by exploiting size mismatches down low)

“The other thing you might argue is that the other team is going to crash the boards and that might create more fast break opportunities.”

Wharton Moneyball podcast 2/12/2020

Small ball strategy might be something smart coaches pursue. Zach Lowe wrote that Toronto’s Nick Nurse will play weird defense, and will sometimes tempt the other team “into inefficient one-on-one battles.”

Two principles Marks hammers again and again is the importance of being right and different and the importance of second level thinking. Though it’s really no surprise that Morey and Marks take different paths to make similar results in unique domains.