Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy • Hacker News Board

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#121

Post by sotix » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 1:52 PM UTC

bjackman wrote: post #29

I think this is very true, I've found the same thing in e.g: - Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. - Squash: getting stronger and faster doesn't make you win games, getting less exhausted does, because you make less mistakes. These are surely not true when you're at a high level, but for most people it's the right focus. The corresponding insight for building software i…

> Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does.

I think this is absolutely true at the lower levels, but once you hit a baseline of consistency, the faster drivers do win races by simply being faster. It can be maddening them trying to recreate their line but still being an entire second per lap slower. But when racing closer to the beginner level, simply being able to complete every lap at a consistent pace does indeed put you at a massive advantage over others.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#122

Post by gizmo » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 1:54 PM UTC

iknownothow wrote: post #108

gizmo wrote: post #97

The author seems to be at Elo 1100. At this level players don't think even a single move ahead and blunder their queen every other game. Slightly better amateur players realize that they should trade pieces once they're ahead to get to a winning end game. Avoiding blunders only works at chess at the lowest levels. It's the same for tennis. Complete amateurs can win just by returning the ball but at higher amateur lev…

I get your point but in your analogy don't you think startups should be considered amateur chess players rather than experts? "Forced errors" are a thing in chess and tennis but I don't see that applying to startups. I can see Apple, Microsoft and other big companies playing chess through lobbyists and lawsuits but I think the article was about startups. P.S. I've never founded a company or have any experience with i…

Your local pizzeria will probably do well by just not blundering. If the pizzas, location, decor, menu, and staff are good enough then the place will do reasonably well. If you do everything right as a pizza place you survive, if you blunder you go bankrupt. On the flip side, they don't have to do anything original. Just doing OK in all dimensions is the winning strategy.

Software isn't like that. It lives in the right tail of the distribution. You can blunder everything except product and still do extremely well, because software costs nothing to produce. Your gross margins are 95%. You can blunder left and right and it doesn't matter when people like your product and pay for it. Mistakes that would destroy any other low margin business you can shrug off.

A pizza place is a local business. They differentiate themselves from other pizza places by being closer to you.

Software is global. Your tiny startup competes with open source, big tech, and everything in between. If your product is mediocre you'll struggle or fail (and rightly so). If your product is great you get a fire hose that spews money.

In basically every interview with successful founders they joke about the giant mistakes they made (that ended up just not mattering). The kind of blunders that destroy any other business are no big deal in software. The article is wrong and the lesson should be the opposite.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#123

Post by lelanthran » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

sotix wrote: post #121

bjackman wrote: post #29

I think this is very true, I've found the same thing in e.g: - Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. - Squash: getting stronger and faster doesn't make you win games, getting less exhausted does, because you make less mistakes. These are surely not true when you're at a high level, but for most people it's the right focus. The corresponding insight for building software i…

> Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. I think this is absolutely true at the lower levels, but once you hit a baseline of consistency, the faster drivers do win races by simply being faster. It can be maddening them trying to recreate their line but still being an entire second per lap slower. But when racing closer to the beginner level, simply being able to complete e…

In the context of startups, everyone's at beginner level.

For auto racing (whether sim or real), the #1 rule has always been "To finish first, first you must finish", which, as I see it, is a direct "make no blunders before worrying about a podium finish".

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#124

Post by fernandopj » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #111

npteljes wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good metaphor. I score similarly in Rainbow 6 Siege, an online FPS game. On the level I play, the game can be very fast paced. Often I score simply because I'm more patient, not because I click more accurately or faster.

This is what professional poker players do, and if the goal is winning it works. It also changes what was originally a pleasurable social activity into a grinding job, which I don't want for things that I currently find fun, like ping pong.

Exactly. This is the reason at one point I stopped being invited to casual poker games with friends of friends. I was amateur level compared to professionals, but just because I don't make blunders, any game session 4 hours long were enough for me to systematically get most if not all of everyone else's money and ruin their fun.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#125

Post by sitkack » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

SenHeng wrote: post #104

bjackman wrote: post #29

I think this is very true, I've found the same thing in e.g: - Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. - Squash: getting stronger and faster doesn't make you win games, getting less exhausted does, because you make less mistakes. These are surely not true when you're at a high level, but for most people it's the right focus. The corresponding insight for building software i…

A good example would be Elizabeth Swaney[0] who somehow found her way into the 2018 Winter Olympics simply by showing up at qualifying. In order to qualify for the Olympics, athletes needed to place in the top 30 at either a FIS Freestyle Ski World Cup event or FIS Freestyle World Ski Championships, and score a minimum of 50.00 FIS points.[9] Swaney achieved this by attending competitions with fewer than thirty parti…

This has been my analysis of high level competition as a whole. It isn't about who is the best, as in peak performance. It is about consistently making the least amount of mistakes.

You can break records, or you can out de-mistake the competition.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#126

Post by I_ » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:27 PM UTC

seabass-labrax wrote: post #74

harry8 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

French Open tennis. Seems like the winners, (eg Rafa Nadal who has one of the greatest sporting records in any sport, anywhere there), consistently hit ground strokes from the baseline, back over the net and deep enough in play. From that point the opponent self-destructs. Ok differs from wimbeldon where guys play Hamlet while playing in the final (Kyrios, Becker, McEnroe, etc. etc.) and can win doing it with outrage…

I don't follow tennis closely enough to understand the difference. What makes the eventual winners at Wimbledon play more aggressively than at the French Open? Is it due to the environment (clay or grass perhaps) or some sort of cultural thing?

Grass is faster, meaning for any given shot over the net you have less time to respond. This encourages attacking behaviour.

Clay is slower, meaning even off fast, angled, difficult-to-reach shots the ball bounces higher and slower, meaning you have time to get to it, thus prolonging rallies and points.

But beyond that, it's not just that players choose to play more aggressive on grass - a given shot is more aggressive on grass.

This is why the serve is more powerful on grass - you open the point with a powerful shot, and on grass that's harder to return.

See rally length differences here: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246341537753006082

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#127

Post by sitkack » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:28 PM UTC

fernandopj wrote: post #124

skeeter2020 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what professional poker players do, and if the goal is winning it works. It also changes what was originally a pleasurable social activity into a grinding job, which I don't want for things that I currently find fun, like ping pong.

Exactly. This is the reason at one point I stopped being invited to casual poker games with friends of friends. I was amateur level compared to professionals, but just because I don't make blunders, any game session 4 hours long were enough for me to systematically get most if not all of everyone else's money and ruin their fun.

You kinda broke the social contract of why that group was hanging out and playing. Not saying you were this guy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxgDaCOS-tE

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#128

Post by adql » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:32 PM UTC

sotix wrote: post #121

bjackman wrote: post #29

I think this is very true, I've found the same thing in e.g: - Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. - Squash: getting stronger and faster doesn't make you win games, getting less exhausted does, because you make less mistakes. These are surely not true when you're at a high level, but for most people it's the right focus. The corresponding insight for building software i…

> Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. I think this is absolutely true at the lower levels, but once you hit a baseline of consistency, the faster drivers do win races by simply being faster. It can be maddening them trying to recreate their line but still being an entire second per lap slower. But when racing closer to the beginner level, simply being able to complete e…

Yeah but getting consistent is the bar you need to get to first before you can even be considered decent.

Being 1s faster than everyone best lap but having ~2s lap-to-lap inconsistency will make you lose every time.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#129

Post by adql » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #18

none_to_remain wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating code is the lowest level of programming. Deleting code is much more refined. Preventing code is sublime.

This leads to analysis paralysis. Building things helps you think clearer.

Designing does. Building and using it is for confirming or revoking any prior assumptions you had about the initial design to improve it.

Most of the thinking should be put into designing and then revising the design, the "building" should be the simplest part.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#130

Post by gizmo » Wed, Apr 03, 2024, 2:50 PM UTC

blowski wrote: post #85

koonsolo wrote: post #56

Once he started talking about chess, I knew it was going to be a limited view on things. There are 2 kinds of games: those that punish mistakes very badly, and those that reward exploited opportunities very richly. I was never good at games like chess because of this exact same reason: I don't cover all my bases and lose from a stupid oversight. However, I'm pretty good at poker, because I know how to exploit an oppo…

I don’t understand your distinction between types of games. In Chess, your stupid mistake creates an opportunity your opponent can exploit. The failure to exploit an opportunity is itself a mistake. I guess in Poker there is an element of luck of the deal - is that the kind of opportunity you’re talking about?

In Poker it isn't so much about how many hands you win or lose, it's about creating big pots when you have good hands and small pots otherwise. That's how good poker players can profitably play bad cards (that are statistically unlikely to make good hands).

In chess the table stakes are always the same. One point for a win, half a point for a draw. To win consistently at chess you have to play the openings carefully, play the mid game strategically, and grind out all the end games. Sloppy players who occasionally make brilliant moves don't get anywhere in chess, because a brilliant sequence of moves will only earn you a single point while small mistakes will still result in full point losses.

In cash game poker you can play sloppy but when you see the opportunity win a huge pot that makes up for all the mistakes and then some.

Tournament poker is a bit more like chess. Successful tournament poker players win by grinding out small victories over the course of many hours.