Your standards for determining the certainty of
"what we already know" are far too low, particularly
since you are charging the players with a form of dishonesty.
By way of contrast, in science, any hypothesis / theory / law
has to have predictive value.
To bring your thinking into line with that, all you would have
to do is start predicting - before the point begins - that
your "lock and feed" team is going to dump the point.
If you and a few others began doing that, it wouldn't take long
to build up an adequate sample for an objective analysis.
You could even time the length of the points to look for other
proof.
As I stated in another post, you have to allow for the fact that
most of the time the team that has reached PGP is going to be
stronger than the team that has a couple of points for place.
So 50-50 is NOT your true expected outcome.
What if the failure to understand that little piece of logic (ie,
it's not 50-50) is a large part of what fuels the belief of the
"lock and feeders"?
