CIA Analyses

I've spent more time reading the CIA book on the Psychology of Intelligence Analysis.  Its basically a how-to on how to dissect complex analytical problems where you have incomplete information and have to make inferences.  

Some of the key concepts translate to sports analysis as well.  There are several different areas of sports betting.  Lets take the NBA as the cornerstone for betting opportunties.  

You can bet on regular season games, who will win the Championship from the start of the season, and bet on playoff series, up to the championship.  

Edit: I never finished this post and will publish as is.  The CIA Intelligence Analysis book is old hat.  

Trying to be like the CIA

  More good information from the CIA book:

There are several modes of analysis by which one might infer cause and effect. In more formal analysis, inferences are made through procedures that collectively comprise the scientific method. The scientist advances a hypothesis, then tests this hypothesis by the collection and statistical analysis of data on many instances of the phenomenon in question. Even then, causality cannot be proved beyond all possible doubt. The scientist seeks to disprove a hypothesis, not to confirm it. A hypothesis is accepted only when it cannot be rejected.

Essentially I need to become more like the CIA when I develop a hypothesis and check it.  Also consider that in my case I'm never going to be able to find absolute rules.  The situation and factors I am judging will always be obscured because I will never have all the information available, and the information I do have will always be gathered second-hand, through a media report.  Actually, if I watch video directly then I could.  Either watching games or you-tube clips of players.  

First-hand information and observations would definitely help.  If I watch the games myself and receive little second-hand information (filtered) then I could study my own patterns of observation and see what I bias.  

What I don't want to do is get into the business of constructing narratives.  Narratives, I'm learning, are the cause of many cognitive biases and much confusion of the part of people everywhere.  They assume causality and order in what is generally a chaotic world and unruly world.  I need to get more scientific in my research, my formulation of hypotheses, and my testing to look for significicance. 

The Intelligence Analysts Toolkit

I need to create a formal "toolkit" for analyzing games, schedules, and circumstances.  I'm reading a book that my friend sent me, that is one of the CIA's reference books for intelligence analysts.  That is essentially what a sports bettor is: an intelligence analyst.   It is titled Psychology of Intelligence Analysis and can be found here.

A theory is a generalization based on the study of many examples of some phenomenon. It specifies that when a given set of conditions arises, certain other conditions will follow either with certainty or with some degree of probability. In other words, conclusions are judged to follow from a set of conditions and a finding that these conditions apply in the specific case being analyzed.

An analyst seeks understanding of current events by comparing them with historical precedents in the same country, or with similar events in other countries

Objectivity is gained by making assumptions explicit so that they may be examined and challenged, not by vain efforts to eliminate them from analysis.

Failure To Consider Diagnosticity of Evidence. In the absence of a complete set of alternative hypotheses, it is not possible to evaluate the "diagnosticity" of evidence. Unfortunately, many analysts are unfamiliar with the concept of diagnosticity of evidence. It refers to the extent to which any item of evidence helps the analyst determine the relative likelihood of alternative hypotheses.  Evidence is diagnostic when it influences an analyst's judgment on the relativelikelihood of the various hypotheses

Scientific method is based on the principle of rejecting hypotheses, while tentatively accepting only those hypotheses that cannot be refuted. Intuitive analysis, by comparison, generally concentrates on confirming a hypothesis and commonly accords more weight to evidence supporting a hypothesis than to evidence that weakens it.  (I think I do this (although I am in the formative stage of hypothesizing)).

Stech notes that in each of these highly successful efforts, the analysts employed procedures that "... facilitated the formulation and testing against each other of alternative hypothetical estimates of enemy intentions. Each of the three accounts stressed this pitting of competing hypotheses against the evidence."

This is basically the summary from Chapter four.  Some very interesting material, for sure.