The "Emperor's nose" fallacy & poker

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]

How much more profound thing I wanted to say is hard to say -- the thing is I would have some trouble to show clearly the practical implications for the limited time I have now.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thanks for the response. I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but can I just say that the kind of sentence you offer above is a dangerous and unsatisfactory one. You seem to be walking very close to Splawndarts territory here by insisting that you have a good case, you just don't have space in the margin for the proof.

If you're right that something more sophisticated or different from weighted averaging is the way to go, why should it be so hard to present an example that makes your case clear?

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, in poker when facing a bet all in, what you would like to know is your equity aka pot odds so you can decide to call or not. Let's say we're playing preflop, your opponent has AKo all in, and you have TT, you want to know that pot odds are roughly 1:1 or the equity is 50% so you can call if there's any dead money. That's what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, let me get this straight, I've got TT, my opponent has AK and I'm doing the pot odds calculation to see if I can call profitably??? I'm ahead, when would it not be mathematically correct to call here?? Are you really trying to convince us otherwise??? I mean, are you really??

Could you please explain how you're not getting at least 1:1 when calling an all-in bet??? Your opponent bets 20, it's 20 to call...1:1, your opponents bets 1 million, it's 1 million to call...1:1. You following? And with dead money in the pot, so much the better (hint > 1:1).

I mean, the above statement officially does it. You are worthless as a poster and your comments are dangerous to the inexperienced. I would just call you a troll but you actually believe what you state.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]

I mean, the above statement officially does it. You are worthless as a poster and your comments are dangerous to the inexperienced. I would just call you a troll but you actually believe what you state.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the reason I've wasted so much time on this thread. When you get behind the high falutin' philosophic mumblings, its worse than no substance. It's actually, profoundly, undisputedly, and provably wrong. And when confronted with it, he becomes evasive and suggests the problem is everyone else's inability to understand his big, big brain.

The only thing left to determine is whether there is such an ancient chinese legend, or if it something he picked up from the latest episode of Charmed.

[7n7]

I now reply to his posts only to forewarn others. Sort of like Paul Revere, though instead of the British, I shout, "SplawnDarts is coming! SplawnDarts is coming!".

I learned a long time ago to research a few posters before I gave them any credibility. It's amazing how many times I've found posts that proved they didn't understand basic concepts, much less advanced and/or expert ones.

Splawn thus far has been one of the worst, both strategy and attitude-wise. Read him at your peril.

[indianaV8]

> walking very close to Splawndarts territory
> you just don't have space in the margin for the proof

These two statements don't fit well together or?

> why should it be so hard to present an example that makes
> your case clear?

Well, that's what I tried to do.

I mean I know what's the right math is (provided you have the right data), and it's not "weighted averaging" (I suppose you meant averaging on weithed hand range by this).

Maybe what I said that "this stuff is fairly obvious and still I have not seen it applied in hand analysys when I'm reading" was a bit of overstatement (or at least it will require me time to elaborate on that).

[PhantomGoose]

Splawndarts on the left (yes it's him):



This pic was posted by ol' Splawny himself originally by the way.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
Splawndarts on the left (yes it's him):



[/ QUOTE ]

Funny enough, it's very close to what I had in my head that he looked like. Age?

I can't read hands for crap, but I can infer your looks from your posts it seems.

[PhantomGoose]

Age? No idea.

[Phil153]

Looks like I have to come here and show you up in this thread as well...

Your OP boils down to:

1. Don't put your opponents on too wide a range.
2. You can't average out dissimilar cases and get an accurate result

I think these are obvious to most people. (1) is just common sense and (2), in the context of poker, is about using the specific information available to you, as opposed to a general subset.

BTW, this goes the other way too, and you can put your opponent on too narrow a range by only considering cases where big money went in and you were beat. So we haven't really learnt anything by reading your post. It still comes down to having experience and using the hand specific information to accuracy judge a hand range.

BTW, polling the experiences of a number of players, and seeing the range of their responses (as opposed to the average) is a good way to determine the boundaries of something. That is most definitely NOT an Emperor's Nose Fallacy, as you claim. I guarantee that if you asked a bunch of people about the size of the emperor's nose, his actual nose would be very likely to fall within the range of answers. That's a valid method of inquiry when you have limited information. And it also applies to poker. Not realizing that is called the I'm Too Blinded by Cool Sounding Fallacies to See the Obvious Stuff Fallacy.

Good luck in your endeavors. See you later.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Eh, that picture does away with my theory that he is actually a fairly bright (if overly belligerent) 11 year old who has never played poker, but would like to someday.