Asking Good Trivia Questions and Distinguishing Talent
Asking Good Trivia Questions
If you have ever participated in a competitive trivia night, at some point you have probably been frustrated with the quality of one of the questions. When your frustration stems from not knowing the answer to a good question, you can only be frustrated with yourself. When, however, you are frustrated because the question was bad, you are probably upset at the people who designed the question. So what qualifies as a good question versus a bad one?
I’d argue that the fundamental characteristic of a good question is: The question allows talent to separate itself from competitors.
The two elements to that definition are 1) separation occurs and 2) the separation can be attributed to skill, not randomness.
Sample question, “Rank the following three Ohio cities in order from most populated to least populated: Grove City, Huber Heights, Kettering.” Yeah, this question is likely going to create a lot of separation in scoring at a trivia night. But you cannot reason through this question; you just have to guess. That’s a bad question because though it creates separation, the separation is attributed to randomness, not talent.
If you are asked an obvious question that everyone in the room answers correctly, that’s a bad question too because it does not create any separation. When you have the worst team at the trivia night, you want bad questions! You want luck/variance to explain the scoreboard; otherwise, you will finish in last place.
On the other hand, when a trivia contest is comprised entirely of good questions, questions that allow skill to separate itself, the most skilled teams will rise to the top of the leaderboard. The same is true in sports. We are going to continually visit how the architecture of a golf course tests a player’s skill set, but the analogy extends to the majority of sports, if not every sport.
Creating Separation through Reverse Camber
The U.S. Women’s Open took place this past week at Olympic Club in San Francisco, California. I recommend this short video from The Fried Egg, which highlights a recurring architectural tactic on display at Olympic Club, reverse camber.
Look at the following picture of Hole #4:
The fairway is sloped in the direction of the red arrows I’ve drawn. Envision a shot that flies on a straight line. Since the ball is bouncing with the slope to the right, a player’s landing area is very small if she hopes to hit a straight tee shot into the fairway. Furthermore, trees line the left side, so it is hazardous to challenge the left edge of the fairway. Therefore, a player must curve the ball from right to left into the slope or the ball will bounce into the rough to the right of the fairway.
The hole continues uphill and to the left (green arrow points to the green), so the more a ball bounces to the right, the farther the player is from the hole. Players who find the fairway probably outscore players who find the right-hand rough by at least half of a stroke, which is a significant penalty. This architectural principle is termed “reverse camber”, and it is employed heavily at Olympic Club.
If you want to understand how individual golf courses test different skill sets, think about a player’s expected score based on if she hits a high quality shot versus an average shot. Is there a significant difference? With which clubs does significant separation occur? Why do people say that Augusta National (site of The Masters) tests iron play? I’ll give you a hint: the greens are not flat and surrounded by rough…
Like a good trivia question, Hole #4 at Olympic Club offers separation (good score versus a bad score) for those who are skilled (able to curve the ball right to left). Nineteen-year-old Yuka Saso won this week’s U.S. Women’s Open, becoming the first person from the Philippines to win a major championship. Only five other players were within four strokes of Saso.
A proper test empowers talent to distinguish itself. Congratulations to Yuka Saso for distinguishing herself this weekend.
Yana Sizikova
This is a fun one. Yana Sizikova, a Russian doubles tennis player, was arrested following her first round loss at the French Open last Thursday. Her arrest is in connection to an allegation that she lost her 2020 French Open match on purpose in exchange for money. After losing the first set, the second set was tied 2-2 and Sizikova was serving. At this moment, some gamblers placed hundreds of thousands of euros on Sizikova’s opponent to win, an abnormally large bet for a random doubles tennis match. These wagers caught the attention of the sportsbooks who accepted the bets.
Sizikova promptly double faults twice in this game, which you can see in the game log. Tennis players tend to double fault 4%-5% of the time. This sequence - massive bet, double fault, double fault - seems like more than a coincidence. Apparently, she played unusually poorly for the remainder of the match and of course, she lost.
“Hey, if you lose the first set and have an opportunity to throw your match, give us a signal and there will be £30,000 in your locker.” That might sound pretty appealing to a player who has only earned £146,000 in her 11-year career.
I’d at least like to imagine that the gamblers were smart enough to lose a few decent-sized bets before firing their Sizikova bet. That’s Hustling 101.
NFL Race-Norming
This story is way less fun. Last Wednesday, the NFL announced that it would cease using race-norming in determining player eligibility for the $1 Billion settlement players received for sustaining brain injuries while playing football. To qualify for the settlement, players have to demonstrate a cognitive deficit. In other words, the player needs to score poorly on cognitive tests like memory challenges to show that playing in the NFL caused brain injury, and the NFL insisted on adjusting scores for race.
The race-norming practice, heavily criticized by many neurologists, assumes a lower baseline for Black individuals, which makes it harder for Black former NFL players to qualify for payments from the settlement.
Here’s a disturbing quote from the AP article:
“The raw score of 15 for naming animals in the language section became a 35 for whites and 41 for Blacks. And the raw score of 51 for “block design” in the visual perception section became a 53 for whites but 60 for Blacks.”
As a result, Black players have found it difficult to qualify for the payments. It’s never shocking to read a story like this connected to the NFL, but it is disheartening nonetheless.
Rahm
On Saturday evening, #3 ranked player in the world Jon Rahm tapped in a putt on his last hole for 64, the best score of the day. As he walked off the green, he held a six shot lead in the tournament, which he assumed he’d carry into the next day. Upon walking off the green, Rahm was informed (on camera) that he had tested positive for Covid-19 and would be forced to withdraw from the tournament.
There is no such thing as a guarantee, but Rahm’s chances of winning the prestigious tournament were upwards of 95%. The PGA Tour has no choice but to force withdrawal from players who test positive for Covid; you cannot have a player in competition actively capable of spreading the coronavirus.
But since Covid-19 entered the country, I cannot think of a more impactful situation in which an athlete had to withdraw from competition after testing positive. Based on the Tour’s protocols, we know that Rahm was not vaccinated. In choosing to not receive the vaccine, an athlete assumes the risk of contracting the virus and the implications on his or her career. That’s a risk calculation for Rahm to make, and it is unfortunate that a withdrawal on the cusp of victory is the outcome for Jon. An expensive lesson!
Feedback/Contact:
Joseph.LaMagnaGolf@gmail.com
Other Content I Enjoyed this Week
NY Times Article on Michelle Wie West
Simone Biles continues dominating:
