2014
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2450479
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Cold Shower for the Hot Hand Fallacy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
41
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 137 publications
1
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The only other controlled shooting studies that we are aware of are Jagacinski, Newell, and Isaac () and Miller and Sanjurjo (). Both studies have few shooters (6 and 8, respectively) but many shots across multiple shooting sessions for each player (540 and 900+ shots, respectively).…”
Section: Application To the Hot Hand Fallacymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The only other controlled shooting studies that we are aware of are Jagacinski, Newell, and Isaac () and Miller and Sanjurjo (). Both studies have few shooters (6 and 8, respectively) but many shots across multiple shooting sessions for each player (540 and 900+ shots, respectively).…”
Section: Application To the Hot Hand Fallacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…296–297)). Miller and Sanjurjo () provided an analysis that distinguishes between hot hand and cold hand shooting, and found hot hand shooting across all extant controlled shooting data sets, but little in the way of cold hand shooting. Thus, in the present analysis, we use the terms streakiness and hot hand shooting interchangeably.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…E.g., if a player shot par on average, the coefficient on lastb would be minus one and the coefficient on lasta plus one, for a dependent variable of s 2 . The bias referred to by Miller and Sanjurjo (2014), and studied explicitly by Miller, Sanjurjo, et al (2015), is very similar, as shown in Appendix B.3 of the latter paper, which refers to the analogous non-panel case. Note that this bias is not caused by time effects (in our context, hole-day effects), since for these FE groups the lagged regressor is not in the same group as the current observation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Physicians making inferences based on limited medical tests (Gigerenzer and Gray [25], Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer [26]); coaches captive to the "hot-hand" model (Tversky and Gilovich [27], Miller and Sanjurjo [28]; economists absorbed in data patterns more relevant to the past than applicable to future developments (Hertwig and Ortmann [29]) can be given as examples. These have in common the perception of random and non-random events.…”
Section: Expectationmentioning
confidence: 99%