Re: Analysis
Mason: [ QUOTE ]
sense, you must start the expectation equation from the point where the question is asked.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mason: [ QUOTE ]
When doing math/stat type problems, and for them to make any sense, it needs to be clear that the problem, as mathematicians like to say, is well defined.
[/ QUOTE ]
Definition, from Mason: [ QUOTE ]
The question is regardless as to whether it is right or wrong to call the raise, if you do go ahead and call it, which hand would you now rather have.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mason. This question is indeed well-defined. As I understand it, you defined it clearly as such: AQ has called the reraise by JJ. Which hand would you now rather have?
I ask you one more time. Please explain your rationale for preferring AQs to JJ given the constraints and assumptions that you laid out.
I showed how EV[JJ] > EV [AQs] given two possible interpretations of the problem, the second one being the one that seems to reflect your well-defined question.
If you believe the question is something different, please show how EV[AQs] > EV[JJ] using the assumptions you have laid out in your earlier analysis. I do not care whether AQs is +EV or not. I simply want to see how you come up with EV[AQs] > EV[JJ].
Your "analysis" does not answer that question. I believe mine does. If you disagree, please explain why.
|