The "Emperor's nose" fallacy & poker

[damaniac]

How does this idea compare with Condorcet's Jury Theorem?

[PhantomGoose]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this idea compare with Condorcet's Jury Theorem?

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems to make sense... the accuracy should improve the more people there are, at least if the 51% assumption holds. Wasn't familiar with that, never cared/took anything for poly sci. Interesting though.

[ QUOTE ]
I admit, at first I was a little drawn in b/c he sounds intelligent enough...and then I did some research and sought out some of his strategy advice.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the thing, though - I consider myself an intelligent person too, but that doesn't entitle me to pretend I'm an expert in everything. With poker I know my place. I wouldn't go telling Nath or someone what's what, you know what I mean?

I'm not that great a player but I've put up graphs for a solid winrate even if it's very small limits - when has this guy ever put up anything? For the limits he claimed to play as a pro he has nothing to show for it. He could be a loser at .05/.10.

[Oberonn]

[ QUOTE ]
There's plenty of deep meaning here. If you don't want to "waste" your time on it, that's OK though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enough of this bickering! I just want to know how long was the Emperor's f'n nose!?! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jtr]

Happy to agree to disagree on the value of the OP's educational story. But I wanted to query this part:

[ QUOTE ]

2) When looking at data do the math right - it's not always an average you should take over the hand range. Also fairly obvious but I hardly have seen ever this considered in most of hand analysys I've read


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you be more specific? 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). Or are you trying to say something more profound?

Because I think you're just muddying the waters here. It is always an average you should take over the hand range.

[AbreuTime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't answered the question - what is your alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]

My alternative is to avoid fallacious reasoning and replace it with correct reasoning. The particular type of correct reasoning I would employ would of course depend on the circumstances.
Even if you find yourself with no alternative whatsoever, that doesn't justify fallacious reasoning. You must simply admit you don't know rather than employing it. The peasant was incapable of getting an actuarte value, but that didn't make his averaged one any more useful. It would have been more accurate for him to simply admit that he had no idea how long the nose was, and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Splawndarts' alternative: throw up your hands and fold if you don't know.

summary of OP: I'm not good at hand reading and assigning ranges to my opponent. So, I will claim that hand reading is a separate enterprise. Now I can safely fold my hand getting 8:1, since I can put my opponent on a single hand (hand ranges and estimated equity don't really matter).

The 20 posts above this have been really good counters to an OP that didnt really deserve such thoughtful responses.

[rakemeplz]

Im not going to get caught up in this, except to ask something definitive like a hand example with alternative thinking to the put him on a hand range and play accordingly theorem.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
> OP has been repeatedly shown to be a blowhard and
> BS artist w/ no credibility whatsoever.

I don't agree here ;-) From my past experience OP sometimes argue to details beyond any reasonable point, but has some vg posts.

Fast look into the thread I got the following points
1) Don't make a lot of math based on useless data - obvious, but I still like the original story, doesn't improve my BB/100H but it's good.
2) When looking at data do the math right - it's not always an average you should take over the hand range. Also fairly obvious but I hardly have seen ever this considered in most of hand analysys I've read

And actually there is no point for discussion. The more reliable data you have estimating the exact probability that he has each possible hand + how he would react to your actions - the better you can do the math and play. If you don't have data, you're just gambling, or playing (what you hope to approximate of course) universal optimal / or exploitive vs. average field stategy.

It's just a good story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like at least one person "got" it. The part in bold is exactly the win-reate increasing nugget you're supposed to take away.

[SplawnDarts]

[ 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.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this idea compare with Condorcet's Jury Theorem?

[/ QUOTE ]

it doesn't compare. First, the voting theorem is about binary choices, which are not what the peasant faced. Poker choices on the surface look the the theorem might apply, but since there are no people with opinions to poll at to the correctness of calling vs. folding, the theorem in fact doesn't apply.

Averaging hand ranges ins not the same as voting jurrors for obvious reasons.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't answered the question - what is your alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]

My alternative is to avoid fallacious reasoning and replace it with correct reasoning. The particular type of correct reasoning I would employ would of course depend on the circumstances.
Even if you find yourself with no alternative whatsoever, that doesn't justify fallacious reasoning. You must simply admit you don't know rather than employing it. The peasant was incapable of getting an actuarte value, but that didn't make his averaged one any more useful. It would have been more accurate for him to simply admit that he had no idea how long the nose was, and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Splawndarts' alternative: throw up your hands and fold if you don't know.

summary of OP: I'm not good at hand reading and assigning ranges to my opponent. So, I will claim that hand reading is a separate enterprise. Now I can safely fold my hand getting 8:1, since I can put my opponent on a single hand (hand ranges and estimated equity don't really matter).

The 20 posts above this have been really good counters to an OP that didnt really deserve such thoughtful responses.

[/ 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.

Nice day and all [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]