That is your job? hahahahaha. what a waste of time that is.
And you absolutely are equating bad players with luck. No matter how much you deny you are, every one of your comments is doing just that. Exactly as ziryab and others have described as well. Its exactly what you are doing.
This is like you admitting the definition of skill is vs luck is success or failure based on ones actions and not random chance. Yet when you describe luck or skill you describe the opposite of this definition. You have absolutely no credibility, which is no surprise since your very work is not a credible job.
I know man, who would ever want to parse out randomness? Besides money managers, insurance adjusters/underwriters, sports GMs, casinos, and many more, all of whose competitive advantage is largely built around or maintained through such research. But what do they know, am I right. Probably throwing away millions just for the heck of it.
"And you absolutely are equating bad players with luck"- no. Good players can be lucky and good players can be unlucky. Bad players can be lucky and bad players can be unlucky.
"you all" is to anyone who is ignorant about the role of randomness in everything humans do.
In any activity, if you can not completely categorize something after a single trial (meaning 0% false positive, 0% false negative) with any amount of initial conditions (relative elo in chess, handicap in golf, etc.) then the activity itself has built in randomness.
If your determination of more skilled vs. lesser skilled is based on the outcome itself (win or lose, hit or miss, convict or acquit, make money or lose money etc.), rather than any sort of prior (elo, batting history, conviction rate, historical RoR etc.) you are being fallacious with your reasoning as shown earlier: "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is when outcomes are analyzed out of context, giving the illusion of causation rather than attributing the outcomes to chance. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy fails to take randomness into account when determining cause and effect, instead emphasizing how outcomes are similar rather than how they are different."
That is why sometimes the more skilled player doesn't prevail in a match, why higher-ranked teams want longer series in the playoffs, and why the golfer who misses the green 1000 straight times and then holes out on the 1001st isn't suddenly skillful in his shot. He's just a bad player who got lucky
Not being able to accurately measure something doesn't negate it's existence, as any religious person will happily point out to you when you try to tell them there's no God. Not having enough data points to measure skill (which is a range, not a discrete value) doesn't mean it's therefore random...you are misinterpreting the Sharpshooter fallacy, and it does not support your position. This is fairly common for posters here. Ask Ponz, who wouldn't know a real straw man argument if it walked up and slapped him in the face.
That's incorrect. If you reject any prior and have no context, then the fallacy is vacuously true as has been explained.
Again, there is a whole book, a best seller even, that is accessible to a lay audience and that will help you learn about this sort of thing: "Fooled By Randomness"