The "Emperor's nose" fallacy & poker

[indianaV8]

Formally, you always take some average at the end.

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.

I'll just try to sketch it fast.

> Are you referring simply to the fact that the correct
> procedure is to take a weighted average of the
> expectation against each of the opponent's possible
> holdings (weighted by their relative probabilities
> obviously).

That is the starting point - and it basically relates a bit more to point 1) - the data, not point 2).

Formally there only one way to do the math right (if you assume your data is precise which is point 1).
It's first not easy to describe that here (there are papers on this) and second the execution of that is computationally infeasible (at least I don't have it running yet [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
For practical purposes (if you want to apply such things for hand analysys of real play) or just to say the above simpler, you can take e.g. the opponent reaction of the various play you can do and his reaction might also depend on a hand range he will put you on, and so on.

As I said, it's not easy to point clearly the practical implications but by investing some time into that you can obtain also results for particular situations that you can apply in practice (not clear how much the time spend on this is worth compared to other options , but I personally play poker much more as a scientific hobby and good profit is more consequence than a goal for me).

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seldom takes a great mind to point out problems in the world, it normally does take one to come up with solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point Set Match. My objection to this BS is the lack of an alternative approach, other then to pretend to be all-knowing and refuse to answer the bare minimum question of what do we replace this supposedly fallacious paradigm with?Without any reasonable alternative to the inexact art of hand reading / analysis of what equity we have in relationship to those hands that based on the best info we have the villian could actually hold, the story is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason no "alternative approach" is presented here is because the alternative is in fact to learn how to play poker. In other words, the information can't be distilled into a 500 word post.

The first step however is to sweap away the incorrect information. Perhaps in a future post I'll talk about alternativs to averaging that are not by nature overly optimistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

So that's your nugget? That someday you may explain this drivel? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Again, I call, sir. When you figure out what what you claim you meant to say in the first place, but didn't, or couldn't, or wouldn't, apparently now because of some word length restrictions, go ahead and post away. I'm dying to know the secret of the long nose emperor. Meanwhile, I guess I'll take your very insightful "play poker" advice right to the bank. I don't believe anyone is actually still waiting for nuggests from you. They are just waiting to see what arrogant and self-aggrandizing remarks you'll spew out in an attempt to half justify the last round of arrogant and self-aggrandizing remarks you've already made.

[Dory]

I disagree with the original assumption that estimating the length of something unknown is somehow related to putting someone on a range of hands.

Our average equity against an opponent's range is probably not going be the same as our equity against the specific hand he holds, but that is not what we are trying to find. We want to know what our equity is if we played this hand an infinite number of times, and if it is profitable.

I'll try and illustrate with a simple hand example (assume $50 stacks, short stacked at 100nl):

We are dealt A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in the CO and raise to $4. Button calls.

Flop comes A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

We bet $8 and our opponent pushes.

We need to call $38 and the pot is $59.5.

We put him on a range of KK+,99-88,AJs+,JsTs,Ts9s,9s8s,8s7s,7s6s,AQo+,98o against which we have 46% equity and so we call.

Now if he happens to have 99, we have almost no equity. But this doesn't mean that our call was incorrect. Our call is correct as long as our estimate of his range is correct. If our hand range is wrong, then our decision may be wrong, but that is not a fallacy in the equity calculation, but in the data itself.

As long as we are accurately estimating his range (and this involves using probabilities that he holds each hand in his range based on his actions) then we are making accurate decisions.

There may be a flaw in my thinking, and I would like it to be pointed out, but I don't think that this logical fallacy applies to poker.

[PhantomGoose]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice mis-statement of my argument. Obviously an intentional strawman argument. Now go bakck, re-read what I actually asaid (rather than what you wich I had said) and if you feel like it post again with resepct to my actual point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, this is the part where he resorts to his tired old "you obviously don't understand my point" tap-dance routine. He understood what you wrote fine, as did about everyone else in the thread. The strawman comment is a joke - you're the worst I've ever seen at that.

There was never any real argument as to why there is a fault with evaluating hand ranges the way it's generally done (which is just as effective as your accuracy in determining ranges), much less any presentation of a superior alternative - any alternative for that matter.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason no "alternative approach" is presented here is because the alternative is in fact to learn how to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you be a little more vague and evasive with your responses please? There's zero substance here, just a lame cop-out.

[ QUOTE ]
The first step however is to sweap away the incorrect information. Perhaps in a future post I'll talk about alternativs to averaging that are not by nature overly optimistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
No you won't, you'll hope we all forget and then try to change the subject to something else when confronted. Then we'll start all over and repeat the next time you're getting run over in a discussion.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the original assumption that estimating the length of something unknown is somehow related to putting someone on a range of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then there's no point in reading the rest of your post because it's based on this mistaken impression.

Here's what the relationship is: The peasant averaged a bunch of stuff, but the mean of the stuff he averaged wasn't the number he actually wanted, so at the end he didn't have anything to be shown for his efforts.

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.

However, if you average the equities across a bunch of hands you think he may have, the mean of the values you average will equal 50% equity only by dumb luck. In other words, the mean of the things you're averaging isn't the number you wanted. Hence you're making the same kind of error as the peasant.

[SplawnDarts]

By the way, those clamoring for an alternative are commiting another common logical fallacy (which I'm not sure has a cool name unfortunatly). They are of the mistaken belief that debunking a logical structure requires presenting an alternate line of logic.

This is clearly not true, and example are so common I'll let you all go find them.

[PhantomGoose]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

As posted, you are +EV to call regardless of what's in the pot, excepting some tournament or metagame considerations. This is not a pot odds question at all, you're the favorite.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if you average the equities across a bunch of hands you think he may have, the mean of the values you average will equal 50% equity only by dumb luck. In other words, the mean of the things you're averaging isn't the number you wanted. Hence you're making the same kind of error as the peasant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your results are as accurate as the range you estimated combined with your ability to calculate your actual equity against that range in a game situation.

If your ranges are way off all of the time, then you suck at hand reading.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, those clamoring for an alternative are commiting another common logical fallacy (which I'm not sure has a cool name unfortunatly). They are of the mistaken belief that debunking a logical structure requires presenting an alternate line of logic.

This is clearly not true, and example are so common I'll let you all go find them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, no substance anywhere: just a few broad, sweeping statements with nothing to support them. Did you just make things up in school like this or what?

[SplawnDarts]

Hmm, more useless air from the usual suspect.

Yes, it was a (very simple) pot odds question. The answer just happened to be "call" because the odds were right. Sounds like you don't understand what pot odds are, and that in part explains your inarticulate bellowing in this thread.

I reccomend you read theory of poker and come back when you're done.

[PhantomGoose]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it was a (very simple) pot odds question. The answer just happened to be "call" because the odds were right. Sounds like you don't understand what pot odds are, and that in part explains your inarticulate bellowing in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I reccomend you read theory of poker and come back when you're done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read TOP numerous times, and apparently understand it a lot better than you do. The odds are ALWAYS right when you're HU and the favorite, so there's no reason to count pot odds here at all.

Do you even play poker or just pretend? Still no graphs or anything out of you.
PS - For a person you're so quick to call inarticulate, I can argue my points better AND spell better than you can, and by quite a bit. You probably just got TOP a month ago anyway.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, those clamoring for an alternative are commiting another common logical fallacy (which I'm not sure has a cool name unfortunatly). They are of the mistaken belief that debunking a logical structure requires presenting an alternate line of logic.

This is clearly not true, and example are so common I'll let you all go find them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I'm not looking for anything other than an explanation of your drivel, and I have less faith that that's forthcoming than a visit for me from the Easter Bunny.