[b:ca0e4943b3]Marcus:[/b:ca0e4943b3]
Good post. I'm gonna have to spend some time doing my own digging. I like the direction it's going though.
I'm not a game theorist or a true stats guy. You seem to be on the right track; however, I'm wondering about two things:
If Joe Average plays .500 over 54 seasons, from his perspective he has irrefutable evidence his game is pure chance, even though several players may be both above and below .500. Neither of us would argue though that the game is pure chance because we're on either side of .500.
Since you have a perfect bell curve around .500, how do you know that the farther right and farther left are not the statistical outliers of many, many coin flips? I know from some "fun with numbers books" you can get outrageous streaks of heads/tails in large numbers of coin flips.
The same arguments are made in mutual fund manager results. Do you get paid in the way of return for hiring a certain money manager? Peter Lynch would say yes and have a track record to back it up; however, statistically, the evidence is overwhelming that overall you do better dollar cost averaging with a low load index fund.
Warren Buffett argues against Random Walk with [i:ca0e4943b3]The Superinvestors of Graham and Doddsville[/i:ca0e4943b3].
Food for thought...
http://www.investorhome.com/coinflip.htm
Here's some irony. If the "Old Guard" keeps winning, then it demonstrates that chance is less involved. But if the "Old Guard" melts into the pack...