Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
So... you don't have an answer?

The peasant should just quit and the poker player cannot make a decision?!?


[/ QUOTE ]

The peasant should just quit if he doesn't have access to anyone with any actual information about the nose. Nothing he does with respect to asking people or averaging will acomplish anything whatsoever.

Likewise, the poker player should adopt some other line of reasoning. What that would be, obviously, is highly dependent on the situation.

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but you have an idea of the hands your opponent might and might not be holding. So what's wrong with taking that into account? It'll be a reasoned estimate of the probabilities he's holding certain hands and a mathematical estimate/calculation of your expectation against these hands which leads to an expectation of your different actions that will make a good choice possible. If you do this intuitively, calculate everything or just go through the range in your head and pick an action, you DO make use of this range and you want it to be as accurate as possible.

I don't see how the example relates to poker (there are many hints that might tell you the length of the nose in poker, while there are none in your story). Also to replace 'fallacious reasoning' with 'correct reasoning' will not mean that you replace 'putting your opponent on a range and reacting appropriately' by something else. You just make sure you do a better job of putting him on a hand.

All you're realy saying is: Do not assume things to easily. And I agree on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to reasoning based on the hands you believe your opponent holds. I'm simply pointing out that averaging is not the correct method by which to conduct that reasoning unless you know the mean of what you're averaging is the value you're trying to find.

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

Averaging the hands on the probabilities he was dealt that hand, i agree, no... Weighing your EV on the probabilities YOU give him holding that hand, yes.

That last is really dependant on the situation indeed. There is more to hand reading than probabilities. We all knew that [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]... What's your point?

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to reasoning based on the hands you believe your opponent holds. I'm simply pointing out that averaging is not the correct method by which to conduct that reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I smell a little backpedaling here - and you just don't average between all of the hands in the range as I pointed out earlier

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to reasoning based on the hands you believe your opponent holds. I'm simply pointing out that averaging is not the correct method by which to conduct that reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I smell a little backpedaling here

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Where did I say I was opposed to using information about opponents holdings? Please quote, with context and link, and without editing, or admit I said nothing of the sort.

Thanks.

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Averaging the hands on the probabilities he was dealt that hand, i agree, no... Weighing your EV on the probabilities YOU give him holding that hand, yes.

That last is really dependant on the situation indeed. There is more to hand reading than probabilities. We all knew that [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]... What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

This weighting thing is a bit of a misnomer. The only wieghting I can think of that gaurantees the weighted average equals your expectation is to weight the hand he has at 1 and everything else at 0. Which is a decidedly degenerate weighting.

Otherwise, various forms of weighted averages are not in any way immune to this fallacy.

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

The way you can't admit that:

1) You are not, and were never, a winning poker pro
2) You never played with Dan Harrington
3) You are not a millionaire

Just a sample of claims you've made - I'm willing offer a full apology AND $100 Stars transfer to you or anyone else that can offer definitive proof I am wrong on any of the above.

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
The way you can't admit that:

1) You are not, and were never, a winning poker pro
2) You never played with Dan Harrington
3) You are not a millionaire

Just a sample of claims you've made - I'm willing offer a full apology AND $100 Stars transfer to you or anyone else that can offer definitive proof I am wrong on any of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

And now you're just randomly throwing [censored] at the wall to see what sticks, and thereby wasting everybody's time including your own.

Hope that works out for you [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

I'm pretty much calling you a flat-out liar, you know that right? You've made these claims yourself, and it's not as if I've never seen you before (Harmony Central)

Re: The \"Emperor\'s nose\" fallacy & poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty much calling you a flat-out liar, you know that right? You've made these claims yourself, and it's not as if I've never seen you before (Harmony Central)

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you can feel free to believe I'm a liar. Store it in the same bin with the other misconceptions you've displayed in this thread.