I think the idea is that if you aren't operating at "pro league" level in anything, you should focus mostly on getting the basics right and not making mistakes. But if you are operating at that level, this is table stakes and you need to do more, or your competition will overrun you.

I suspect most people/organizations operating at the highest level understand or have internalized this, but many in the other category have not, to their demise. I've certainly seen organizations get themselves in trouble by trying to execute on something trickier than they were ready for. And others fail at something through an accumulation of clearly (at least, in retrospect) avoidable mistakes.

The corollary being that you are very likely to be in the latter category, like it or not, and it's best to realize it.

I haven't read the book though so could easily be misinterpreting.

Until you get to the level of college and NFL, being successful as a quarterback is largely about being physically gifted. At those lofty levels though sometimes a QB who looked unstoppable at a lower level looks lost at sea. That because everyone on the field is a supremely gifted athlete, the game becomes far more intellectual, and these guys find themselves unable to handle the complexity of the defensive schemes and offensive systems.

> "I think the idea is that if you aren't operating at "pro league" level in anything, you should focus mostly on getting the basics right and not making mistakes."

still, that's just a matter of definition and perspective. even at a pro level, if you don't win, you made at least one mistake relative to your opponent. so to win, make fewer mistakes, right?

i don't play video games anymore (and never played more than recreationally), but i've played pro-am basketball, and from my observation, being a pro doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. it usually means that, besides having highly honed skills, you have more tricks in the bag to recover from your mistakes (and conversely, to induce mistakes in opponents).

so the contention is that everyone can benefit from a strategy of reducing mistakes (aka active practice), pro or not, and the prior anecdote isn't really super-useful.

--devli's advocate

> so to win, make fewer mistakes, right?

I don't think that is correct according the to thesis (and again, haven't read it so may be misrepresenting).

They are saying that at that (pro) level, not making mistakes is not enough, you have to make things happen too. Obviously making too many mistakes will cost you, but they are suggesting that playing "perfectly safe" can still easily lead to a loss. I don't think anyone was suggesting that pros don't make mistakes (hell, there are entire stats dedicated to this), but rather than merely focusing on minimizing them will not win you a championship.

The idea is that conversely at lower levels of performance, this isn't the case, and it really is mostly about lowering mistake rates. More tellingly, it suggests that the opportunity cost of focusing on anything else is likely too high.

To tie it back to the actual post, this suggests if you are spending a bunch of time and effort "metagaming" but you haven't already mastered the game, you are probably going to have poorer returns than just getting better at the game. This at least sounds plausible to me.

There's also an argument that a some areas just don't really HAVE a pro league, so focusing on not making mistakes is plenty... This can be the case if a) everyone is a beginner, because the field is new, and/or the fundamentals aren't cleanly understood, or b) no one really cares enough to become a pro (perhaps because it's an area that isn't rewarded by available incentive structures).

In my experience not everyone is mindful of their mistakes. If you write them off to 'bad luck' or circumstance, you miss the opportunity to understand the root cause of the outcome (the mistake if you will).

As an action plan, I would write that: Engage in the activity and dive deeply into all of the mistakes you make and develop the skill or tactic to avoid that mistake in the future. At the point where you don't make mistakes any more, then you start look at the meta and responding to what your opponent is setting up to do, rather than what they are doing right now.

that's a good point--players should practice acively, rather than passively (like shooting lots of baskets but never working on improving your shooting form).

but i'd still contend you never get to a point where you don't make mistakes and then turn to the meta-game. folks tend to start thinking about, and honing, the meta-game at different levels of experience.

For most sports, if you're defensive you'll beat offensive minded people until you reach a very high level of amateur play. People will constantly make low percentage plays because they're fun and they will misplay while executing them.

They will "fall on their own swords".

For most games with a net, focus on keeping the ball in play. For team sports, play defense and just keep it simple.

Basically, "never interrupt your adversary while they are making a mistake".

I think this is true in professional ball sports in sort of the inverse. Once you reach the highest level, then the focus is once again on defense. Defense wins championships.

I played a lot of American football growing up and so heard the quote "Defense wins championships" very regularly and I always disagreed.

Teams lose games all the time while holding the other team to a very low score, but almost no one ever loses if they put up 50 points.

But then again, I played offense...

Teams also win all to time while a low score and lose if they allow 50pts.

It's easy to score 1 or 2 touchdowns on accident, even against the best defense in the league. No one scores 50 points on accident, especially against solid opponents.

This has direct implications in head-to-head games.

In fighting games, this observation leads to the following advice for someone playing against an opponent with weaker fundamentals: "play it safe until you give them enough rope to hang themselves."

Instead of going in as aggressively as normally would be required against a skilled opponent, just sit there and defend, and give your opponent free reign to try to crack your defense. The more they try, the more chances they give themselves to slip up and make a big mistake, which you then take full advantage of.

If their execution is worse than your defense, this is seen as a less risky strategy than going in on the offensive and hoping you don't make a mistake yourself.

Also applies to chess in the same way. Weaker opponents tend to accidentally "hang" their pieces a lot (i.e. move their pieces directly under attack of your pieces) just by poor observation, so it can be a good strategy to just stall, keep to your side of the board, and wait until your opponent slips up and makes a crucial mistake. Once they've made enough mistakes and you have enough of a material advantage, moving in for the win becomes completely trivial.

I think it's more actionable than it may appear.

For me, in most multiplayer games (Overwatch and such), I became far better (and more useful to the team) when I focused more on staying alive ("not making mistakes") rather than trying to execute fancy plays.

That depends. I think it means that at a certain level, in order to improve, you must play tougher opponents.

The game of Go makes this abundantly clear. You can actually damage your own skills by playing too many inexperienced or weaker opponents. But playing someone just a bit stronger than you can improve you both.

I don't know if this works the same in e-sports, but it is striking in Go, or to a lesser extent, Chess.

In the original context (finance/investing) his point is that virtually nobody actually manages to consistently beat the market average (net of fees). So it's a "loser's game" and most people would do better avoiding mistakes like paying high fees than trying to beat the market.