Jun
14
A Pleasant Afternoon Spent Shooting, from George Parkanyi
June 14, 2009 |
Now before the more weary and jaded of you parents out there start high-fiving, it was only laser-tag at our local Laser-Quest. It was my son Tom's 15th birthday, and I took him and his friends out to one of their favourite past-times. Since I had bought a package for eight, and we didn't quite have eight, I forced myself to take one of the spots.
The way it works is that multiple groups go into the play area with vests and lasers. The lasers score a hit when they tag one of the flashing sensors on another player's vest. At this point you feel a vibration and you are down for five seconds — you can neither shoot or be shot. A computer tallies all the hits, right down to exactly who shot whom, how many times, and on which sensor. The hits are scored and at the end of the game, the rankings are displayed on a monitor, and each player is given his own score-sheet with their results. At the beginning of each game, each player is assigned a code name of his own selection, which is then loaded into the laser gun with an activation key. Since my first pick "Pooh Bear" was taken, I opted instead for "Hannibal" … What?
The kids, especially the younger ones, just like to run around a lot, often in packs. Knowing this, my approach is basically to lay low and snipe; just wait for them to come to me. A cluster of kids is a "target-rich" area, and you just shoot into it and can score a lot of points if you can keep firing without pause. You hear a lot of "Awwww"'s when they get hit. (Although the downside is that there are a lot of them, and you'll likely get hit as well as they overwhelm you). I like to set up high on the outside perimeter facing inward with a good view of at least two corridors, and also down into the middle of the play area (there are two levels, so its a three-dimensional game). I had a great spot in the first game, just beyond an intersection (good for surprising) and looking down a zig-zagged corridor with diagonal in-croppings that forced player to slowly zig-zag down it rather than quickly go straight. But there was enough of a gap between corners that by steadily firing down it, you hit most of the players trying to go through — either coming or going. I did have a corridor behind me and knew I'd be hit (and was) if someone came up from behind, but there was much more activity in front of me, so I scored hits many more times than I received. Out of about 35 players, I came in second. (Another adult came in first, so its not just me.)
In the second game I was more mobile. Although I scored a lot, it wasn't as many as the first game, and I got hit more often. Even so, I still managed to come in third. There was one group of three little girls, maybe 8-9 years old, that I bumped into enough times, that eventually when they saw me, they would yell "It's him! It's him" and go screaming off in the other direction. So I'd chase them little bit for effect and shoot their rear sensors. I think I scored a lot of points off those poor kids. (And I think one of them was Pooh Bear).
I think I earned a new respect from Tom and his friends. "Why does your dad call himself Hannibal?"
Relevance to the markets? When we were milling around afterward comparing scores, the kids asked me what my hit ratio was. It was 8% in the first, and 7% the second. They were wondering how I got such a high score with such a low hit ratio. I explained to them that it was sheer numbers. When you saw a target, your chances improved if you kept on firing rather than trying to carefully aim and just squeeze off singles. The market analogy would be figuring out how to limit your losses (accepting getting shot occasionally from low-traffic areas), determining your opportunity and edge (concentrating focus and fire on the high-traffic areas), and exploiting the advantage to its fullest regardless of win percentage (firing frequently regardless of the many misses). It worked for this type of game, and would also work for a market trading style designed to exploit a statistical advantage where turnover increases overall profitability.
Comments
Archives
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles