[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you believe the situation, then that is either a mistake, or you are not an advantage gambler.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's definitely not a mistake. I just don't like gambling. I like playing poker because it's a fun, challenging game that gives me something to think about. The money is nice, but it's not the main reason why I play.
[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you are not an advantage gambler. Don't think this protects you from making mistakes.
[ QUOTE ]
It's great that you're working on an economics degree and everything, but you're overlooking the obvious issue of revealed preferences. People were given the opportunity to partially hedge, and they chose to fully hedge instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is very common for people to have an opportunity, and to fail to take advantage of it.
You were given the statement that I already have a degree in economics (and a terminal degree in another field), and you misread it as that I am working on a degree. You were given the repeated statement by me that partial hedging is reasonable, and you misstated it again "You're advancing a 'HEDGERS ARE ALL PU$$IES!!11!' argument" as that I am against all hedging. How are we supposed to believe you behave optimally when you have such difficulty reading?
In this position last night, my opponent played Bar/22(2) 7/1 instead of hitting with Bar/22 Bar/16*, an astounding blunder. This did not reveal a preference for staying stacked up and dumping a checker. He made a mistake. Other plays indicated that although he was trying to win the match, he had a poor understanding of how to get to that situation. As an advantage gambler, it's worth a lot for me to recognize mistakes, to decrease my own, and to find opponents who make many large mistakes.
I believe that many people who hedged 100% did not recognize the option of hedging between 0% and 100%, and that it was a scalable opportunity to bet 10 to win 11.
[ QUOTE ]
That's prima facia evidence that full hedging was EU-maximizing for those people. There is nothing you can do to get around that point.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you even know what
prima facia means? It is a synonym for superficial (at first glance). You are assuming that the people are rational, and that they could not have made a mistake. That assumption is bad, and it is ridiculous to maintain that assumption in a discussion of whether people erred in a particular situation. People make mistakes all of the time, whether you believe it or not, and it is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether people who hedged 100% made a mistake.
Would you also argue that there is no point for a poker player to get a book on poker strategy, because the poker player is already rational and therefore plays poker perfectly?
Hedging 100% (instead of a smaller amount) is a mistake for an advantage gambler. Smart advantage gamblers can recognize this when it is pointed out. You have been given the information. I'm not going to spoonfeed you more.