{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihxoljvzdtpkb7dxytqknrgh6nw7vlpzllhwp3gewwpji2v4cxiyi",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ylpnglndtjtnzu4sgl2o66e2/app.bsky.feed.post/3me7wnfkf6dp2"
  },
  "description": "In the presence of randomness, high-frequency observation obscures signal. Why Djokovic's 55% point wins reveal less than his 88% match record.",
  "path": "/when-you-get-too-close-you-only-hear-the-noise/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-06T15:55:04.000Z",
  "site": "https://www.arrieta.io",
  "textContent": "There are some very interesting statistics about Novak Djokovic that can teach us about noise versus signal.\n\nyear-end ranking | points won | matches won\n---|---|---\n78 or worse | 49% | 45%\n16 | 52% | 69%\n2 | 54% | 82%\n1 | 55% | 88%\n\n## reading it left to right\n\nIf we read the stats for points followed by the matches (i.e., points won → matches won), the observation by the optimist in you is that small improvements in the short term lead to massive benefits in the long run. The data is indisputable: by \"improving\" the number of points won by 6 percentage points, Djokovic went just another starving tennis player to the most dominant in the world. His win rate from 45% to 88%.\n\nWhat is not revealed to us is the cost of moving by 1 percentage point. The optimist (and those who enjoy watching Ted Talks in YouTube) call it \"small improvement\" but it's unseen by us and likely extremely costly or, in the domain of tennis, even impossible if your name is not Novak.\n\n## reading it right to left\n\nThere is a different read, one that I find a lot more insightful: points won ← matches won.\n\nBeyond doubt, tennis is a domain in which skill is necessary to succeed. Now, we take the most skilled player (behind Federer and Rios, of course) in his most dominant year, and start counting points in matches (imagine watching the points change in a scoreboard, without actually seeing players) and yet we barely see a thing:\n\n> he only wins 55% of the time.\n\nThis is because in small intervals, we only see the noise (the variance).\n\n## checking your brokerage account 170 times per day\n\nOn terrain reconnaissance: consider that playing piano admits a lot less randomness than playing tennis. And consider that playing tennis allows for a lot less randomness than \"investing\" in the market.\n\nWhat do you think you see when you look at your brokerage account multiple times per day?\n\nYou only see noise, and every unfavorable move causes psychological pain. It can also cause you to change course based on purely faulty signals.\n\nNew Year Resolution: continue not reading the news, and review your accounts every six months, no more.",
  "title": "when you get too close, you only hear the noise",
  "updatedAt": "2026-02-08T04:56:27.127Z"
}