[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Skall, i really enjoy your posts, esp in legis.

The objective of a poker player is to win other participants money. The skill of poker is in betting/calling/raising/checking PROFITABLY. To do this, players must develop an sound expectation of opponent's future behavior based on how the opponent will value
1. the distributed/expected cards
2. his ability to exert betting influence over you

The skill to being profitably is assesing how an opponent values both his cards and his influence, then determining if your cards and actions will lead him to overvalue his holdings and/or his "influence expecation"

Also, while you may have posted the Lederer argument first, saying you were first to think of it is not only impossible to determine, but absurd [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Keep up the good posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words Salazar. A major reason I make these posts is to "try out" these arguments before making them elsewhere. It helps to get the (intelligent) feedback, and I thank you for your replies.

And you are right, I can only prove that I POSTED the argument first. But I will let you in on a little secret - I emailed the argument direcly to the PPA administration about 2 weeks ago (when the first post about the Harvard meeting came up on here). I was emailed back with the assurance that the PPA board would see my email. Now I see PPA board member Lederer making essentially the same argument.

I care more about the arguments success than I do about my getting the credit. But I do have enough ego to want the credit acknowledged, especially if it succeeds.

Would be nice to have an obit that says "the lawyer who saved legal poker." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Skallagrim