About Stone, Scissor and Paper Game

 Objective Meditations about Zero Point

Can you belive in there might be some deterministic (unstochastic) laws of indeterministic (stochastic) fields?

It is quite difficult to express what i mean. When i was quite young, about 18, one of my biggest pretention was to play good poker, faultless poker. I was thinking for all cases, might there be a faultless way of playing?  Yes, there was about hundred per cent. I was not meaning to win always; this is something else.. Please imagine, the chess parties, and the interpretations than after.  I mean, a judgment, (of course a prompt one)  covering all the essential points of situation without falling of any controversies and conceiving all the controversies of your rival and to reach a sole, unique, logic solution.

At this time, i used to have a good fellow enthusiast of poker, as i am.. Most of the time, we were playing on the same time, but never side by side, always face to face. Being partner, is against the rules, sitting side by side. When we were sitting on the same table, the monophonic game were returning a symphony where both of were playing in a perfect harmony. My point is not self astonishment or talk about harmony; it might be issue of another essay.

My point is the game of stone, scissor, paper; I head learned this Japan based game through James Bond’s courtesy to Ian Fleming. Stone losses to paper, wins over scissor; paper losses to scissor, wins over stone and scissor losses to stone wins over paper i.e. scissor cuts paper , paper envelopes stone, stone blinds scissor. It is very well and evenly designed game, as an eastern thought game.. Let’s try to deconstruct it through western thought.

First step: Let’s assume you are playing against a first time player. If it was you who toughed the game, you have probably started to show it with stone, boxed hand, first it is the most common gesture and secondly it the most archaic type. Stone, is the initiation figure; at the game your rival as much as slow minded will stick on it as much as; if he/she very quick minded, a big success, he/she will shift to paper a figure that can beat Stone, assuming that you will do stone… It is up to you; you should first evaluate the quick-mindedness of your rival. To win the first hand, or at least finish scoreless, you had better to start with paper..

Analytical: You are asking probably; Wouldn’t he/she shift to scissor at all; might be, a male rival doesn’t start with scissor as it refers something threatening him; but the female rival might be up to according to her fixations. If it is so, you have better to cut your relation with her, forever, being as a male.

What i mean? To start with scissor requires much more strong brain power, it is the most complicated figure and thirdly (press on your feet heavily) it is psychologically obstacle.

Let’s consider the figures; from a analytical psychological point of view stone reminds aggressiveness, paper intellectual (phallic), productivity, motivations and scissor castration complex.

Anyone, even having some destructive feelings, probably will not to reveal it at first step; henceforth for someone, new in the game the scissor is quite low probability.

As a result, keep the feelings of your rival under control of your feelings; feel him/his passions send him/her positive or negative feedbacks to surprise him/her.

I think there is bias even in fair, equal circumtances toward to intelligence, knowledge, and feelings and virtue as the general tendency of univers; but never become winner obssesive; never fall in passion to win the game, only wish.

The best way of playing this game,is to play with EQ, the Mentor in yours will show you the way..

Debate on the Tiebreake Rules

To the kind attention of Mr. Platini

UEFA President

Nyon- Vaud- Switzerland

2 Major Critics on The Way to Determine The Best Third for Euro 2016

or Generally Speaking a Debate on The Tiebreake Rules for  Cross-Groups Qualification

For Euro 2016, due to  prime number (53) of participants, it is required to qualify a best third team, by way of a tiebreake rule.

Thanksfully, Turkey, scored a unic level that doesn’t give way too much (not at all) debate… But will it be always so with current way of determining the “best”, apart of ranking the teamsaccording  to their scores?
This years’ problem had a prerequisite; to levigate, the number of teams in each group; but the solution to this, was interdependently determining the final qualification, the best third The rule was, to equalize the number of teams within each group, through eliminating  of the last rank team of larger groups, with all outcomes. . That one is really a criticable rule due to its bias-relatedness with the next step, i.e. the adopted rule, determines also the next phase, best third, as it happend this time.. .

That’s a way! Within 8 groups with 6 teams, last rank team is eliminated with all outomes, in order to be equal by number to the 9th group of 5 teams. And that one was done after the qualifications of first 2 teams within each group; Thanksfully, the ranking of first 2 doesn’t change in any of these groups, after the groups after the elimintion; but it may not be always so, in one of the days, it  may effect the ranking of first 2 and even more than 2.

That’s a way, once again! But instate of eliminating last rank team of larger groups with all their results, it mght be thought to duplicate the last rank team of smaller groups with all their outcomes and making the qualification for the best third than after. In our real case, the first 2 ranks does not  effects in any of the groups, but Turkey looses level, and Hungary and Norway promote to the best third.

Which way is better? Generaly speaking, a model with higher number of trials (here number of matches) is much more up to more accuracy, statistically; taken for granted, the groups are at same level of hardness. Therefor, duplicating  the last rank of smaller groups, with all the outcomes (including card penalties also) seems to be better, besides reduces the task to evaluate.  But, the equality of hardness of groups, is not totally free of discussions; especially with minorly populated countries; therefor reducing the size of groups, deserves always some considerations.  

But, the problematic doesn’t end here. Where we will stop reducing the size of groups, stays critical here. Taking into consideration mostly adopted and accepted as  tiebreake rules, especially the rule for deadlocked competitors. Decreasing the number of competitors, one by one in each group in order to determine the qualifed team(s) (here the 3th rank), and make the cross-groups qualification(s), (here the best third) then after.

In such a case the results will be as follows.

For Group A, Iceland, should be winner; Czech Rebuplic and Turkey will be at tiebreake, and Turkey should be qualified as runner-up according the tiebreake rule 2 (Superior goal difference resulting from the matches played between the teams in question), and Czech Rebuplic should wait to be evaluated for best third.

Group A

Pos.	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
1	Iceland	4	2	0	2	6	4	2	6
2	Turkey	4	2	0	2	4	5	-1	6
3	Czech Republic	4	2	0	2	4	5	-1	6

Last word; as it can be seen, the chosen method, also may qualify the winner, runner-up. Therefor this is just the  time of to reconsider, the qualification rules, within a group and accross-groups.

A model interrelatedly causing less bias, should be evaluated as the best; in our case, a model with minimum nominees for qualification.

Truly yours

Dogan Ozkan

Economist (M.A)