HP/ Spoiler alert - Nothing New Here

[mycropht33]

No: HPFGUIDX 129559

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mycropht33" <k.coble at c...> wrote:
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, theotokos
> <theotokos_8679 at s...> wrote:
> > > Steve <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> > > We could just as easily speculate that any poll found at the 
> > > "Harry Potter for Grownups" group, where people are deeply 
> > > intellectual and extremely knowledgable, and respresent the 
> > > combined massive intellect of the entire Harry Potter fan world, 
> > > are 'in the know' and are certainly correct in their prediction. 
> > > As a matter of fact, that very character always come in highly 
> > > rated in our death predictions. Perhaps tommorrow, The Mirror will
> > > indicate that we have 'leaked' the secret.
> > > 
> > > ******************
> 
> > mycropht33:
> > 
> > ... I am getting really tired of people using their "predictions" as
> > some sort of flexing of intellectual muscle. An educated guess is an
> >  educated guess. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.
> > 
> > Sorry for coming off cranky. It's just been a sore point for me for 
> > awhile now.
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> You do understand that that entire paragraph was intended as a
> humorous attempt to point out the absurdity of lending any weight to
> anyone's predictions or any 'leaks'?

Yes, I understood fully.  I jumped on it simply because it seemed to be summing up in one 
paragraph a lot of what I've seen on this group infrequently and in other places 
(mugglenet, leaky cauldron, potter plots, alt.fan.harry potter) a lot lately.   It's one thing to 
theorize, but quite another to make grand assumptions about onesself based on the 
outcome of the situation.   It bugs me.   



 
> I have to wonder if you even read the original post (#129500) because
> you seemed to have missed the context of my statement. I pointed out
> that this isn't even a story about a 'leak'. It's a non-story in which
> someone speculated that there might have been a leak because of a
> betting trend in a particular area.

Not only did I read the original post, I posted something quite similar to it myself.  I also 
have been following this story in both British and US press because I am not only a Harry 
Potter fan, but am also an avid games theorist.  This story represents a very large common 
set of my interests.  

 A betting trend that is probably
> the most obvious and predictable choice of any of the potential
> characters. A betting trend that is so obvious that it is a cliche.

Some would argue that the betting trend isn't that obvious, especially since the 
bookmakers' line did not originally support the current trend in flutter placement.

What a LOT of people don't realize is that games theory is a very real and very 
mathematically precise discipline made even more interesting by melding statistical 
probability with human behaviour models.   What appears to you as a nonstory appears to 
me and other games theorists as an actual trace dynamic.   It's Games Theory 101--a 
cluster behaviour chaos iteration impacting the dynamic.  So, while you say it's a non-
story, I say it's a model predictor.  

Other places where Games Theory comes in handy and fun are eBay and politics.   




> Further, a figurative bet that has been placed, or at least discussed
> by virtually every person in every HP group in the world. Really, a
> complete non-story.

I reiterate that statistically since there is a limited data set of possible characters who may 
die, the fact that this death has been discussed by nearly everyone is of no consequence.  
What matters in the world of gambling is the line placed on it by the bookmakers.


> In addition, I think the most logical explanation is the one I gave.
> People bet on the most obvious character 


I have never thought that this particular death was obvious for book 6.  Book 7, yes.  Book 
6, no.


> 
> I still say this is a complete non-story, nothing more that typcial
> baseless inflamed headlines and speculation by a tabloid newspaper.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that since we are talking about 700 pages it would
> have taken more than 'a peek' for anyone to have figured out who died
> in the book. 

I don't think so.  As a mystery reader with a penchant for glancing at the end, I can usually 
tell whodunnit in about 30 seconds.

It took me a grand total of 17 seconds to peek ahead and see who the death was in OOTP.  
You develop a knack. 

(In case you haven't guessed by the GT krep, I am addicted to outcomes.)