"Expected Value is complicated because a 50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000" Is it though?
The payout is exactly the same but what op means is that you need less "50% of 100%" bets than "10% chance at $1000" to reach the same payout. 1 in 2 for the first one will pay out. and 1 in 10 for the second one will pay out. Variance is higher for second than for first.
I think the questioner is asking if
"50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000"
should be
"50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $500"
I've found that frequently bluffing in life pays off. Generally you don't get caught very often and the cost of getting caught generally isn't very high, even if the stakes are. You have to be prepared to take your way out of sticky situations though.
Could you give an example of this?
People who describe themselves as super honest usually are self-deprecating. They tend to under value their knowledge and experience.
The reality is, 95% of scenarios don’t require what is asked for, and stating your capabilities in the most generous way is the optimal decision. Just back it up with work.
I've found that frequently bluffing in life pays off. Generally you don't get caught very often and the cost of getting caught generally isn't very high, even if the stakes are. You have to be prepared to take your way out of sticky situations though.
I attended a talk by Richard Garfield, the game designer behind Magic: The Gathering. He made a point that adding randomness to a game can be a way to give it that property of "easy to learn, hard to master", and in turn make it easier for a community to grow around the game. When you add randomness, it becomes possible for novices to sometimes beat more experienced players through sheer luck. Contrast that with e.g. chess, where it doesn't take much skill difference before the most skilled player is almost certain to win. So randomness makes it easier for newcomers to get the occasional win, to keep them motivated while learning. But at the same time, randomness can make it harder to master, because the cause-effect-relationship between good decisions and good outcomes becomes blurred, like the article points out, defeating the trivial "reward function" we usually use for evaluating our performance. It takes a lot of discipline to say "I won, but it was luck, because I actually misplayed" and learn from that. And on top of that, high level play will become a game of analyzing and estimating probabilities, minimizing or maximizing variability depending on the strength of your position, basically embracing randomness as a gameplay element to be understood and sometimes even manipulated, despite being so intangible compared to most other gameplay elements. So used the right way, adding randomness to a game can both lower the barrier of entry, and raise the skill ceiling at the same time.
"Expected Value is complicated because a 50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000" Is it though?
The payout is exactly the same but what op means is that you need less "50% of 100%" bets than "10% chance at $1000" to reach the same payout. 1 in 2 for the first one will pay out. and 1 in 10 for the second one will pay out. Variance is higher for second than for first.
I'm a serious but hobbyist player with ~15k hands last month. The thinking like a poker player is mostly about being upfront about your risk tolerances and then having a culture supporting people who make the best risk adjusted decision, even if it doesn't work out. Expected Value is complicated because a 50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000. It's the variance, not the EV that makes a lot of decis…
I also like the discourse on bankrolls and bets sizing. I think being able to correctly size your bets is such a great, albeit challenging skill to have in the real world.
The payout is exactly the same but what op means is that you need less "50% of 100%" bets than "10% chance at $1000" to reach the same payout. 1 in 2 for the first one will pay out. and 1 in 10 for the second one will pay out. Variance is higher for second than for first.
I think the questioner is asking if "50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000" should be "50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $500"
The author sounds like a losing poker player. If my calling frequency is based entirely on pot odds, a good opponent would just start bluffing me out of every pot by increasing their bet size to a point where I can’t profitably call.
But note that unexploitable, game theory optimal strategy in poker does not differ based on the opponent. It’s not just based on pot odds, but on the whole sequence of actions and cards. Still not a very good article, though.
The author sounds like a losing poker player. If my calling frequency is based entirely on pot odds, a good opponent would just start bluffing me out of every pot by increasing their bet size to a point where I can’t profitably call.
We have no idea what kind of player they are because the article isn't about being the best poker player. I don't recommend making a habit of bluffing in real life. Unlike in poker and certain television shows, people aren't likely to respect you for it and it may expose you legally.