大家好，我是德研社创始人姜沈励，今天我们来开始一起学习《Thinking in bets》这本书。这本书一共有6章，约60节，260页，10万字。我已经快速粗读了英文原本，确定这本书可以为社员们带来对扑克更深的理解。
在接下来的时间里，我会陪伴大家一起精读这本书。不仅仅包括翻译，也包括加入自己这几年来运营德研社的一些心得体会。喜欢这本书的同学，也可以加我微信（realalley2) 或者进入德研社一起讨论。
第一节的标题是《Pete Carroll and the Monday Morning Quarterbacks》
在我准备今天的内容时，我才发现Monday Morning Quarterbacks 是一个英语哩语，中文接近于事后诸葛亮。美国的橄榄球比赛一般在周日举办，每周一就会出现各类评论家开始点评某球队战术有这个问题那个问题。但实际上，这些评论家可能从来没有打过一场橄榄球球赛。
作者安妮在书的开头，就真的用了一场橄榄球赛作为第一个案例。
我本来想把这个案例换成中国读者更喜闻乐见的案例、免于去理解橄榄球的一些规则术语，但是当我看了这场比赛的视频后，我真的被比赛的氛围感动了。我把涉及这个案例的视频细节录制了下来，放在了文章正文。一段一分多钟的视频就似乎直接解释了为什么美国最火的运动不是篮球，而是橄榄球。
作者写道：
One of the most controversial decisions in Super Bowl history took place in the closing seconds of Super Bowl XLIX in 2015. The Seattle Seahawks, with twenty-six seconds remaining and trailing by four points, had the ball on second down at the New England Patriots’ one- yard line. Everybody expected Seahawks coach Pete Carroll to call for a handoff to running back Marshawn Lynch. Why wouldn’t you expect that call? It was a short-yardage situation and Lynch was one of the best running backs in the NFL.
超级碗历史上最具争议的决定之一发生在2015年超级碗XLIX的最后几秒钟。西雅图海鹰队还剩26秒，落后4分，在新英格兰爱国者队一码线上第二次得分。每个人都期待海鹰队教练皮特·卡罗尔（Pete Carroll）召唤马肖恩·林奇（Marshawn Lynch）冲球。你为什么不这么做呢？这是一个短距离的冲刺得分机会，林奇是NFL最好的后卫之一。
Instead, Carroll called for quarterback Russell Wilson to pass. New England intercepted the ball, winning the Super Bowl moments later.
相反，卡罗尔要求四分卫拉塞尔·威尔逊传球。但是新英格兰拦截了球，随后赢得了超级碗。
The headlines the next day were brutal:
第二天的头条新闻是残酷的:
USA Today: “What on Earth Was Seattle Thinking with Worst Play Call in NFL History?”
《今日美国》:“西雅图当时对NFL历史上最糟糕的战术布置有什么想法？”
Washington Post: “‘Worst Play-Call in Super Bowl History’ Will Forever Alter Perception of Seahawks,Patriots”
《华盛顿邮报》:“ ‘超级碗历史上最糟糕的战术布置’将永远改变海鹰、爱国者的前景”
FoxSports.com: “Dumbest Call in Super Bowl History Could Be Beginning of the End for Seattle Seahawks”
福克斯体育网:“超级碗历史上最愚蠢的战术布置可能是西雅图海鹰队灭亡的开始”
Seattle Times: “Seahawks Lost Because of the Worst Call in Super Bowl History”
西雅图时报:“因为超级碗历史上最糟糕的战术安排,海鹰队输了”
The New Yorker: “A Coach’s Terrible Super BowlMistake”
《纽约客》:“一个教练的可怕超级碗错误”
Although the matter was considered by nearly every pundit as beyond debate, a few outlying voices argued that the play choice was sound, if not brilliant. Benjamin Morris’s analysis on FiveThirtyEight.com and Brian Burke’s on Slate.com convincingly argued that the decision to throw the ball was totally defensible, invoking clock-management and end-of-game considerations. They also pointed out that an interception was an extremely unlikely outcome. (Out of sixty-six passes attempted from an opponent’s one- yard line during the season, zero had been intercepted. In the previous fifteen seasons, the interception rate in that situation was about 2%.)
尽管几乎所有的权威人士都认为这是无可争议的事情，但一些不相干的声音则认为这场比赛的战术选择即使不是英明的，也是合理的。本杰明·莫里斯辩护道:传球的决定是完全可以被理解的，并援引了时钟管理和比赛结束的考虑。他们还指出拦截是极不可能的结果。(在本赛季从对手一码线的66次传球尝试中，零次被拦截。在过去的15个赛季中，这种情况下的拦截率约为2 %。)
Those dissenting voices didn’t make a dent in the avalanche of criticism directed at Pete Carroll. Whether or not you buy into the contrarian analysis, most people didn’t want to give Carroll the credit for having thought it through, or having anyreason at all for his call. That raises the question: Why did somany people sostrongly believe that Pete Carroll got it so wrong?
这些反对声音并没有消弱针对皮特·卡罗尔的大量批评，大多数人批评教练卡罗尔没有深思熟虑，不接受不传球给林奇的任何理由。
这个案例带出了一个问题:为什么这么多人如此强烈地认为皮特·卡罗尔错了？
We can sum it up in four words: the play didn’t work.
我们可以用一句话来概括它：这场比赛中的战术安排没有奏效。
Take a moment to imagine that Wilson completed the pass for a game-winning touchdown. Wouldn’t the headlines change to “Brilliant Call” or “Seahawks Win Super Bowl on Surprise Play” or “Carroll Outsmarts Belichick”?
让我们想象一下，威尔逊完成了赢得比赛的触地得分。则头条新闻会不会变成“精彩的战术安排”或“海鹰队出其不意地赢得超级碗”吗？
Carroll got unlucky. He had control over the quality of the play-call decision, but not over how it turned out. It was exactly because he didn’t get a favorable result that he took the heat. He called a play that had a high percentage of ending in a game-winning touchdown or an incomplete pass (which would have allowed two more plays for the Seahawks to hand off the ball to Marshawn Lynch). He made a good- quality decision that got a bad result.
卡罗尔运气不好。他控制了战术安排决定的质量，但没有控制结果。正是得到了一个不利的结果，使他承受了压力。从数学统计上看，他做了一个高质量的决定，但结果很糟糕。
Pete Carroll was a victim of our tendency to equate the quality of a decision with the quality of its outcome. Poker players have a word for this: “resulting.” When I started playing poker, more experienced players warned me about the dangers of resulting, cautioning me to resist the temptation to change my strategy just because a few hands didn’t turn out well in the short run.
皮特·卡罗尔是我们倾向于将决策质量与结果质量等同起来的受害者。扑克玩家对此有一句话:“resulting。”这个词，我暂且翻译为“结果导向误区”，这是一个扑克玩家的哩语，如果有更好的翻译可以告诉我。作者继续说道 “当我开始玩扑克的时候，更有经验的玩家警告我结果导向带来的危险，告诫我不要仅仅因为几手牌在短期内表现不佳而改变策略。
Why are we so bad at separating luck and skill? Why are we so uncomfortable knowing that results can be beyond our control? Why do we create such a strong connection between results and the quality of the decisions preceding them? How can we avoid falling into the trap of the Monday Morning Quarterback, whether it is in analyzing someone else’s decision or in making and reviewing the decisions in our own lives?
为什么我们如此不善于区分运气和技能？如果结果超出我们的控制，我们为什么如此不舒服？为什么我们要在结果和决策的质量之间建立如此紧密的联系？无论是在分析别人的决定，还是在自己生活中做出和回顾这些决定，我们如何才能避免落入周一四分卫（或事后诸葛亮）的陷阱呢？
这个章节，作者用一个经典的争议案例来描述了什么是“结果导向误区”。
我的父母在炒股票的时候，也会出现类似的争论，“你看，今天格力股票涨停了，教你买你没买，我昨天就说近期某某领导最近参观了格力，肯定是一个大利好吧？”如此的言论言之凿凿，完全不像一个实际股票被深深套牢多年的中国典型股民。
接下来的第二节，作者介绍结果导向误区所带来的危害，《The hazards of resulting》
持续更新……
喜欢这本书的同学，也可以加我微信（realalley2) 或者加入德研社一起讨论。
系列文章：
网友评论