Autistic Kid Picks Perfect NCAA Bracket
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Frankly, I find the interest in stories like this a little absurd--no amount of intelligence will allow you to accurately predict something this variable. No one freaks out when an ESPN secretary's picks are more accurate than their host's, because everyone knows she picked teams based on uniform colors and just got lucky. I doubt this is much different.
In other words, there's no evidence to suggest that great skill is at play here, let alone evidence to suggest that his disorder created that skill.
In other words, there's no evidence to suggest that great skill is at play here, let alone evidence to suggest that his disorder created that skill.
I bet even he could not have predicted Zynga or Turbine (if he didn't know about last year's vote begging). He would probably have chosen an actual really good developer, one that is hard to argue against. One that has earned international recognition by producing fantastic, award winning, genre pushing, technologically great, etc etc games. When did Turbine or Zynga ever do any of that...Greg Tito said:
I do wonder if anyone in the Escapist will have predicted MM 100%. I sure know I didn't pick Zynga at all, and there was 1 other in the first round I lost on. I actually thought I'd get them all
Mainly because I was voting on a combination of knowing what the Escapist forum goers would vote, not the ones just signing up for Zynga (I even took into account the ones signing up from Turbine).If someone predicted the Zynga dominance... My lord what a champion amongst men.
He picked Syracuse. He's done. Still an impressive feat though, to pick two rounds perfectly in this crazy upset-filled March Madness.
I'm sure that someone with an illness isn't going to be all that happy when everyone around him is yelling 'autistic'! all the freaking time. Yes, he got the bracket right over the experts. There's only so many permutations of that list, as many have said earlier, someone would of got it right sooner or later.Baby Tea said:
To people with this illness, autism is a label other people put on them.
He got his first one wrong when Butler upset Syracuse. It almost impossible to get a completely right bracket and this was no different. Although only getting one wrong so far in this tourny is absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah it comes down to odds. I can get a room of chimps to pick the winner, and if one has a mental disorder it's a good pat on the back news story? Please.
Hmmm, well I'd imagine someone picks a perfect bracket each year somewhere just by the numbers. I'm less impressed with this than many people I guess, I don't think he's the basketball "rain man" at this point, unless he can do so a lot more consistantly.
That said I'd also point out that in real casinos (where I worked) your specifically banned from playing if you have a natural advantage like an eidetic memory, ditto for people who make livings by sleight of hand and the like. There are lists of stage magicians, known photographic memories, and other types that are prohibited from gaming.
A real Savant wouldn't nearly bankrupt a casino, but he would have a good chance of being arrested, or at least the person who brought him in would. Makes for some nice movies scenes, but real life doesn't work that way.
Consider for a second that Nevada makes it's own state laws for gambling and things like this have so far been defended by precedent. Other casinos tend to be on Indian Reservations and thus nearly impossible to regulate.
A big part of the arguement is ironically that such things are "games of chance" cheating to adjust the odds in your favor (as a player) is illegal, as is having a natural abillity that changes the odds so it's not as random. The odds favoring the house (overwhelmingly) being what makes such businesses practical, and there is always the chance that a player will wind up on the winning side of any equasion which is why they come. Now yes, this is on a lot of levels complete BS (and I won't get into it, but many people can guess why) but that isn't the point.
Irrelevent, but given the Rain Man referances I thought I'd mention it. Chances are if this guy was a sports version of Rain Man, he's rapidly wind up being unable to play in a Sports Book, and anyone else found dealing with him could have their winnings invalidated should a connection ever be proven.
That said I'd also point out that in real casinos (where I worked) your specifically banned from playing if you have a natural advantage like an eidetic memory, ditto for people who make livings by sleight of hand and the like. There are lists of stage magicians, known photographic memories, and other types that are prohibited from gaming.
A real Savant wouldn't nearly bankrupt a casino, but he would have a good chance of being arrested, or at least the person who brought him in would. Makes for some nice movies scenes, but real life doesn't work that way.
Consider for a second that Nevada makes it's own state laws for gambling and things like this have so far been defended by precedent. Other casinos tend to be on Indian Reservations and thus nearly impossible to regulate.
A big part of the arguement is ironically that such things are "games of chance" cheating to adjust the odds in your favor (as a player) is illegal, as is having a natural abillity that changes the odds so it's not as random. The odds favoring the house (overwhelmingly) being what makes such businesses practical, and there is always the chance that a player will wind up on the winning side of any equasion which is why they come. Now yes, this is on a lot of levels complete BS (and I won't get into it, but many people can guess why) but that isn't the point.
Irrelevent, but given the Rain Man referances I thought I'd mention it. Chances are if this guy was a sports version of Rain Man, he's rapidly wind up being unable to play in a Sports Book, and anyone else found dealing with him could have their winnings invalidated should a connection ever be proven.
You do know that autistics and people with several different mental disabilities are unusually good at some things, like music, Math and so on?Baby Tea said:
Also, 3 millions of people, 1 to 13 million chance of making it right by picking randomly the teams with NO knowledge or sense at all... It means that what, it's a 1 in a 4 chance to happen?
Let me know when the kid does something that isn't just blind luck and a matter of chance.
Would you make the same article if it was a 95-year old grandpa who can't hear or has Alzheimer's? Of course, because it's good publicity.
...I hate singling out people for their luck...
Yeah! A 1 in 4 chance if everyone picked a completely different bracket.Abedeus said:
But that's not going to happen, so the odds are actually much higher.
But you're right. Never mind that it would have been crazy awesome no matter who did it, and never mind that this kid is going to be held back by his illness for his entire life, as there is no cure, and will probably never again have the opportunity to have this kind of attention, but screw it, right?
Let's instead all be internet grumpy-pants who can't enjoy any lick of positive news.
That's a much better idea.
How did the kid manage to guess correctly? The author answered his own question when he made the analogy to winning the lottery.
The odds of winning a state lottery are 1 in millions, but dozens of people every year win the lottery, and the odds confirm that we should expect that. There are hundreds of thousands of people making brackets and they've been doing it for decades -- somebody will eventually be that 1 in 13.6 million that guesses correctly (and the odds are actually far better than that, given that you can predict things like the historically worst team likely won't make it to the finals).
Unless the kid can show some sort of model he made that predicted the unexpected outcomes (several upsets, including Cornell going long), his claim of math and stats doesn't explain why he did better than the experts. As far as I'm concerned, he's just another guy with a lottery ticket, and his happens to be the winner.
Lastly, the bracket is never going to be perfectly predictable. From a player getting injured in a game, to a ref making or missing a call, to players getting sick or having an off day, there is far too much randomness to perfectly predict the outcome. Yes, you might get lucky, and with a good model you can improve the odds that you get lucky, but you'll never be able to guess correctly every time. Entropy and the butterfly principle dictate that we can never know everything, because even the smallest difference can affect the outcome of the game.
The odds of winning a state lottery are 1 in millions, but dozens of people every year win the lottery, and the odds confirm that we should expect that. There are hundreds of thousands of people making brackets and they've been doing it for decades -- somebody will eventually be that 1 in 13.6 million that guesses correctly (and the odds are actually far better than that, given that you can predict things like the historically worst team likely won't make it to the finals).
Unless the kid can show some sort of model he made that predicted the unexpected outcomes (several upsets, including Cornell going long), his claim of math and stats doesn't explain why he did better than the experts. As far as I'm concerned, he's just another guy with a lottery ticket, and his happens to be the winner.
Lastly, the bracket is never going to be perfectly predictable. From a player getting injured in a game, to a ref making or missing a call, to players getting sick or having an off day, there is far too much randomness to perfectly predict the outcome. Yes, you might get lucky, and with a good model you can improve the odds that you get lucky, but you'll never be able to guess correctly every time. Entropy and the butterfly principle dictate that we can never know everything, because even the smallest difference can affect the outcome of the game.
Should we really be celebrating people's luck? Sure, it makes for interesting news (nobody expects the unexpected), but it had nothing to do with anything he did, he just got lucky enough to be the one.Baby Tea said:
And should it be even more impressive because he has a disability? I actually know some disabled people who would take offense to that. People with autism, though they are challenged by their disability, are still quite capable. In fact, as others have pointed out, their disability can actually be a blessing in disguise, as it gives them a level of focus that people don't normally have. Just because he has a disability isn't a reason to hold him to a lower standard.
Let the kid have his 15 minutes of glory when he truly accomplishes something, just like the rest of us.
What's there positive in a person somewhere on the other side of the world lucking out. Unless you spend 10 hours a day finding lottery winners and congratulating them and wanting to make interviews with them.Baby Tea said:
Face it - the probability of someone simply being lucky is a lot higher than someone "calculating it". It would've been much more impressive if the kid did something actually worthwhile.
It's like a situation where guy is yelling on the street "IT'S GOING TO RAIN, IT'S GOING TO RAIN!!!". If he's wrong, big deal, nobody will remember. If it rains... some people might care enough to care about it.