New Thread For Yes Or No Questions - Page 4

Divad Yksnal · #31 01-08-2007, 08:35 PM

"In limit holdem with a 2-3 blind structure, when in the small blind, is it ever correct to muck in lieu of completing"

Come on leap! This question is inconsequential unless you are interested in pure theory.

DY

Lucere · #32 01-08-2007, 09:09 PM

This question is related to the optimal game theory in the two person game topic that you recently wrote about in the 2+2 magazine. Because the example is different than the two person game, excuse the lengthy preface.

In my town, it costs 25 cents to park at a parking meter downtown, and the quarter buys you 50 minutes (a dime gets you 20 minutes and a nickel gets you 10). There is a 4 hour time limit on the meter. Therefore, the most you can put in at one time is $1.40 (4 quarters, 2 dimes) to complete the four hour limit. If a person works an 8 hour workday, they pay $2.80 everyday to park. A ticket for an expired meter is $5.00. So, you can either risk getting a ticket and pay nothing (in other words, save $2.80) if you succeed, pay $5 if you don't succeed, or pay $2.80 and not get a ticket. The probability that the meter person will ticket that day is somewhat unknown. For example, if it's raining, they don't ticket that day, but on days it's not raining, sometimes they ticket, and sometimes they don't.

My question is: Is this situation conducive to figuring out an optimal "game theory" type strategy of paying and not paying the meters daily on days where it's not raining? Technically, parking meters (and related tickets) are always a -EV situation, but there is a lesser evil (i.e., not paying a ticket, and also paying less than $2.80 a day). So, in other words, can there be an optimal strategy to achieve that lesser evil?

leaponthis · #33 01-08-2007, 09:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Come on leap! This question is inconsequential unless you are interested in pure theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not this question has nothing to do with the EV of the play. It is a question, don't laugh, of image.

leaponthis

Divad Yksnal · #34 01-08-2007, 09:59 PM

hmmm, something like you don't want to be seen as taking the game too seriously??

I'm new here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

DY

David Sklansky · #35 01-08-2007, 10:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone on this forum more intelligent than you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Not even David Yksnal.

David Sklansky · #36 01-08-2007, 10:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
have you ever posted under a gimmick/alias account on 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

David Sklansky · #37 01-08-2007, 10:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In your heart attack question you indicated that the an Anesthesiologist would be best of the five choices to have at your side, and suggested that you didn't understand why.

If you were having a heart attack, would you take the advice of the people who told you it's best to have the Anesthesiologist, not understanding why, or would you use your previous best judgement and pick who you would have chosen before hand? Or does the advice just move the Anesthesiologist up on the list, but not enough to make him number one?

Some readers may realize that this question, as well as many questions in life, is similar to a poker situation where you have to make a decision considering whether you should take a different action than you would otherwise, based on additional information which may or may not be accurate (a tell, something someone told you about a player, etc.). I'm asking the question because I'm curious about how much weight David put on what he was told.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd pick the anesthesiologist. Especially after the post by the med student.

David Sklansky · #38 01-08-2007, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Should you (or a similar genius) be given all the power to decide for the better of mankind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming our goals were the same and the only question was how to reach those goals, and assuming we can consult with experts in other fields, the answer is an easy yes (if compared with the present system. Something in between might be better yet.)

David Sklansky · #39 01-08-2007, 10:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you eat more than four pounds of meat per week?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

David Sklansky · #40 01-08-2007, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever come to a logical conclusion that you feel unable to share with anybody, because of the certainty that you would aquire a severely damaging negative label (e.g. racist, sicko, psychopath, fascist, pervert etc) as a result? (Obviously if you answer yes, I don't expect you to say what it is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Share with anybody? No. Share with everybody, so far yes but that might change.