| |
BGonline.org Forums
Extras in chouettes
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Extras in chouettes (Rich Munitz)
Date: Friday, 31 July 2009, at 12:48 a.m.
The point about the captain taking even though he or she knows that it is not a take is a good one that I had not thought of.
So suppose we modify my suggestion: Play things my way if some player *other than the captain* is the renegade.
Phil Simborg wrote: `"the renegade will usually just lose more money instead of being vindicated" is a statement that is, in my opinion, statistically wrong. In the long run, if he is right about the take, he will make more money, and if he is wrong, he will lose more.' This is a confusion. What is true is that a renegade who systematically takes correctly will, in the long run, make money against weaker opponents. But under my assumption that his winning chances are 30%, it is true that he will *usually* lose money (which is what I said; I was very careful about how I chose my words in my previous post); it's just that his rare wins will be big wins that will more than make up for the losses. But in any case, my real point is that for *one particular position* there is no "long run" if it is only rolled out *once*. In terms of settling a debate about the merits of a take in a particular position, one gets a significantly more reliable answer from two rollouts than from one. The "long run" Phil mentions only settles a debate about whether the renegade is an overall good player, not whether he or she is right about that particular take.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.