Thursday, August 10, 2006
Unaffected
I've been quite annoyed by commentators saying how Sunday's race hasn't affected the championship battle much, if at all. Can't they see that no affect is an affect? Even if Schumacher hadn't got that point, the battle still would have been affected. Now there are only five races left, as opposed to six. Schumacher really does have to come first every single time and he'll only just win by virtue of having won more races, with their points tied. It's all pretty exciting, if you ask me. I'm sure someone must know the name of the theory, or the scientist who discovered it: nothing happening is still something having not happened.
Comments:
<< Home
It would be reasonably easy to argue that Michael's one point gain is a backwards step.
As Nick points out if Michael wins every race and Alonso came second then Michael would still win the championship but only just. It would be, I think, the closest championship ever and bad for the sport. Try explaining that although the two drivers tied for points they gave the championship to Michael. It sounds bad because of Michaels public reputation.
There is a concept used in banking called "time vs value of money". And it's used to deal with deciding about risky investments. And a five race winning streak is certainly a risky investment.
What it does is compares the expected profit of an investment over a specific time in this risky environment and compares that number not with your original lump sum but with the return that there would be if you invested your money in the highest rate government backed savings account. Then look at the difference and divide that by the risk. Eg. The stock market is risky verses a bank but not massively so so you'd expect a premium over a bank account but not a massive one. Investing in a small African mine company with no track record is much more risky but then they might be promising to give you back one hundred times your original investment. The point of all this is that it's not good enough to give back your original investment after five years you have to give back more than the person would have made at the bank otherwise you have effectively lost money through opportunity cost (this I think is the theory that you were talking about Nick? That if you don't do something then you have a cost which is that you've missed your opportunity. Wikepedia about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost).
Michael has increased his points score by one point but when we're now expecting him to need two points a race he's done worse than the bank rate in effect. So his risk is increased and his returns are lessened. So in Opportunity Cost terms he's lost ground not gained it.
As Nick points out if Michael wins every race and Alonso came second then Michael would still win the championship but only just. It would be, I think, the closest championship ever and bad for the sport. Try explaining that although the two drivers tied for points they gave the championship to Michael. It sounds bad because of Michaels public reputation.
There is a concept used in banking called "time vs value of money". And it's used to deal with deciding about risky investments. And a five race winning streak is certainly a risky investment.
What it does is compares the expected profit of an investment over a specific time in this risky environment and compares that number not with your original lump sum but with the return that there would be if you invested your money in the highest rate government backed savings account. Then look at the difference and divide that by the risk. Eg. The stock market is risky verses a bank but not massively so so you'd expect a premium over a bank account but not a massive one. Investing in a small African mine company with no track record is much more risky but then they might be promising to give you back one hundred times your original investment. The point of all this is that it's not good enough to give back your original investment after five years you have to give back more than the person would have made at the bank otherwise you have effectively lost money through opportunity cost (this I think is the theory that you were talking about Nick? That if you don't do something then you have a cost which is that you've missed your opportunity. Wikepedia about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost).
Michael has increased his points score by one point but when we're now expecting him to need two points a race he's done worse than the bank rate in effect. So his risk is increased and his returns are lessened. So in Opportunity Cost terms he's lost ground not gained it.
I'm not sure I understand the theory, but it seems to sum up what I was saying. It also applies to Alonso though, he has missed an opportunity too. The idea of people not being happy if Michael wins on tied points is interesting. Surely they'd respect the effort it took, and be happy if he then, as surely he would, retired?
Anyway, I've searched the internet and come up with nothing (yes, I know, not nothing but you know what I mean). It could be a law of physics or a zen idea, no one says anything for certain.
I did find lots of refernces to 'i turned the computer on and nothing happened', which began to annoy me: something did happen, you just don't know what it was, I wanted to say to them.
Also, I found possibly the dullest blog in the world: nothinghappens.net
Anyway, I've searched the internet and come up with nothing (yes, I know, not nothing but you know what I mean). It could be a law of physics or a zen idea, no one says anything for certain.
I did find lots of refernces to 'i turned the computer on and nothing happened', which began to annoy me: something did happen, you just don't know what it was, I wanted to say to them.
Also, I found possibly the dullest blog in the world: nothinghappens.net
Just thinking about the tied championship going to the driver that won the most races; in football, the most exciting title races are just that - two teams that end up tied on points and can only be separated by goal difference.
In fact, the most exciting ever was when Arsenal* won in 1989. A last-minute goal in the very last match of the season against leaders Liverpool at Anfield meant a 2-0 victory which put both teams on the same goal difference. They had to be separated on goals scored, Arsenal clinching it.
Thanks. Carry on.
TheNewbie
* I must admit a small amount of bias here...
In fact, the most exciting ever was when Arsenal* won in 1989. A last-minute goal in the very last match of the season against leaders Liverpool at Anfield meant a 2-0 victory which put both teams on the same goal difference. They had to be separated on goals scored, Arsenal clinching it.
Thanks. Carry on.
TheNewbie
* I must admit a small amount of bias here...
I remember a particular moment from last year which was, as I'm sure we all remember, a year in which Michael didn't do very well. I was watching a program called 8 out of 10 cats which talks about things that had been in the news, and one of the stories that they mentioned was the Indianapolis race controversy.
The joke that was made on the show was that it couldn't really be news because guess who won? Michael Schumacher.
It was a stupid joke from a "person who knows about F1" point of view because that was the only race that Michael won. But the point I was making was that it sounds a bit like the same kind of joke to the people who only pay attention to Formula 1 when something interesting happened.
You could imagine them saying something like, "it was a draw but they decided to give it to Michael Schumacher anyway".
Post a Comment
The joke that was made on the show was that it couldn't really be news because guess who won? Michael Schumacher.
It was a stupid joke from a "person who knows about F1" point of view because that was the only race that Michael won. But the point I was making was that it sounds a bit like the same kind of joke to the people who only pay attention to Formula 1 when something interesting happened.
You could imagine them saying something like, "it was a draw but they decided to give it to Michael Schumacher anyway".
<< Home
