|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1431
|
|||
|
|||
700/23 vs 700/25 tires ?
In article
, " wrote: On Mar 9, 6:45*pm, Tim McNamara wrote: Another example: the house in casino gambling typically has an advantage of just a few percent in any given bet (for many casino games, not slots). If you didn't know this, and placed 10 or 20 bets, you'd win close to half, and lose close to half. You wouldn't be able to tell that the house had an advantage. *Does this mean that the house's advantage is negligible? *In the long run, over many bets and many bettors, the house does not think so. Of course, if all you ever do in the casino is make 10 small bets and then leave, maybe you don't care that the house is taking a little from you on average. *Cheap entertainment and all that. *But if you care about winning, or losing as slowly as possible to prolong the entertainment, then you might care about small differences in the odds. *Casinos have better odds than state lotteries; blackjack has better odds than roulette; both have better odds than slots. *There are entire websites devoted to this, so somebody doesn't think it's negligible. The house's advantage is overwhelming in many of these games- they win every time the customer loses, and there are far more ways to lose than to win. *Bike racing does not function the same way. *Blackjack is perhaps the best analogue. Your description of why the house wins at casino gambling is incorrect. For many bets, there are more ways to lose than win, but the house pays off a win at more than 1:1. For some bets, the odds are only a little worse than 1:1 and the house pays off at 1:1. The ratio the house pays off at is carefully chosen to give the house a small advantage. If the advantage were overwhelming, the customers would lose money too quickly and not come back. Consider roulette. There's 38 numbers on a Vegas roulette wheel. If you bet on a single number the house pays off at 35:1. If you bet on red or black the house pays off at 1:1 and its small winning margin comes from the green numbers. More info and an odds table he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette If a roulette wheel was a bit uneven, it would take hundreds of tries to reveal at 3-sigma significance that some numbers were a few percent better. However, someone who had been lucky enough to be betting on the good numbers would be, _on average_, ahead by that few percent. Not negligible. And also unlikely to be significant. Most of the time in bike racing you don't win, even if you are Bret. If you can do something to increase the odds of winning, it helps, even though it will be difficult to show by a post facto evaluation of statistics that you improved. Model-building helps to evaluate claims of improvement, because only in very unusual cases would you be able to show a direct causal link between the change you made and a win. That being the point I've been making, except that basically in most cases you'd be unable to show *any* link. So, then, how do you evaluate what improvements are worth chasing and which are not? This really is not restricted to equipment despite your insisting that it is a gearhead question. Agreed, except that the thread was prompted by a question about gearhead stuff- a pair of tires- and not about training. Trying to stick at least a bit to the original premise here. I think that racers can get far larger improvements from training and tactics changes than from a pair of tires or a water bottle or a frame 6 ounces lighter, and that the far larger improvements are more likely to have a positive outcome in races. If I trained harder and improved my power at lactate threshold by 5-10 watts, I think it would improve my chance of winning races (if I got off my ass and raced). However, it would be difficult to analyze any given race post facto and say that my power improvement was the deciding factor. Except for time trials, which are easier to analyze, but I have heard in this thread that they don't count. You're talking to the wrong guy about that. TTs are fine by me because they make measurement easier. It's just hard to transfer that to crits and road races and that caveat must be borne in mind. |
Ads |
#1432
|
|||
|
|||
700/23 vs 700/25 tires ?
In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:27:05 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: The ball is still in your court, no matter how much you try to deflect it. You claim that there are hundreds of tiny changes- with no discernible effect themselves- that add up to a significant competitive advantage. I don't recall the "hundreds" but maye I said it. More likely I said "many." But in terms of hundreds: 10 grams. Add it up a hundred times. There's one. So, be specific. You did you make 100 changes of 10 grams to your bike? As of yet, you've identified none. Pure balonely. In this group we've heard of weight, gears, aerobars, tire quality, wheels. (I know you've accepted aerobars.). *You* have identified none. Other people have done the work for you in this discussion. You haven't. Still waiting and at this point guessing that we will wait until this thread is long over with and you still won't come up with a list of those changes for us to discuss. I'm still waiting for your answer on what year's bike you'd race, assuming you were allowed your aero bars. What's the problem with a bike from 1907 again? Oh yeah, you said the question didn't make sense or some such dodge. Yup. It's a stupid ass question. |
#1433
|
|||
|
|||
700/23 vs 700/25 tires ?
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:45:43 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote: In article , John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:27:05 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: The ball is still in your court, no matter how much you try to deflect it. You claim that there are hundreds of tiny changes- with no discernible effect themselves- that add up to a significant competitive advantage. I don't recall the "hundreds" but maye I said it. More likely I said "many." But in terms of hundreds: 10 grams. Add it up a hundred times. There's one. So, be specific. You did you make 100 changes of 10 grams to your bike? That's how bikes have changed over the years. You've said bikes from way back are just as fast as now except for a few things like aero bars. They're not. |
#1434
|
|||
|
|||
700/23 vs 700/25 tires ?
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:45:43 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote: In article , John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: I'm still waiting for your answer on what year's bike you'd race, assuming you were allowed your aero bars. What's the problem with a bike from 1907 again? Oh yeah, you said the question didn't make sense or some such dodge. Yup. It's a stupid ass question. Yeah. The dodge. As expected. |
#1435
|
|||
|
|||
700/23 vs 700/25 tires ?
In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:45:43 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: In article , John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:27:05 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: The ball is still in your court, no matter how much you try to deflect it. You claim that there are hundreds of tiny changes- with no discernible effect themselves- that add up to a significant competitive advantage. I don't recall the "hundreds" but maye I said it. More likely I said "many." But in terms of hundreds: 10 grams. Add it up a hundred times. There's one. So, be specific. You did you make 100 changes of 10 grams to your bike? That's how bikes have changed over the years. You've said bikes from way back are just as fast as now except for a few things like aero bars. They're not. Round and round in circles you go. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Tires T-Mobile Continental GP 3000 Tires | Scott Morrison | Marketplace | 1 | August 29th 07 10:59 PM |
Order a pair of tires or 3 tires? | RS | Techniques | 12 | July 12th 06 06:40 PM |
Wide Mt. Bike Tires vs. Thin Tires | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 17 | April 12th 05 06:13 AM |
relative cost/usage between bicycle tires and automobile tires | Anonymous | Techniques | 46 | April 7th 04 07:03 PM |
23c or 25c tires | kpros | Techniques | 30 | March 12th 04 03:59 AM |