We disagree on whether any "blunder" was made in the example you
gave. However, if this is the best you can come up with to
illustrate a Bob Dancer "blunder", then IMO you have done more to
increase Bob's stature than reduce it.
--Dunbar
>
> I don't consider either of what you've pointed out to
> be "blunders". In formal mathematics, every expression is
either
> defined, postulated, or proven by theorem. I
doubt "mathematical
> sense" is defined or postulated in any branch of math.
>
This type of wording is often used to state whether or not the
mathematics itself (the computations) makes any sense. Not all
questions can be answered by math. I'm not sure where you're
heading.
> Your objection seems to lie in the English meaning of the
> expression, not any strict mathematical meaning.
Of course it is. English is how we communicate. Bob "communicated"
that the MATH did not make sense. I countered with the fact that
the
MATH makes perfect sense. You clearly disagree and that is fine
but I
still think my interpretation is more accurate.
> I think Bob's use
> of 'mathematical sense' was a reasonable use with respect to his
> argument that it is not particularly enlightening to calculate
the
> odds of a particular pair of hands occuring while ignoring the
fact
> that any two paricular hands is going to be a rare event.
Then we differ in our opinions. I think you are bending over
backwards to be kind. That is your choice. Most mathematicians
tend
to be more strict in their interpretations of issues related to
math.
>
> The second "blunder" you mention is completely without merit,
IMO.
> I have to admit that I am biased, because I almost posted
something
> very similar to what Bob posted. Bob was just trying to show
that
> picking out 2 hands in a sequence of hands will always be a rare
> event. In making that argument, it doesn't matter how similar
or
> disimilar those 2 hands are to the original "rare" hands.
I think you missed my point. The ongoing discussion was on hand
TYPES, not specific hands. Bob decided to argue that any specific
card combination is rare and therefore all discussion
is "meaningless". I beg to differ. Various hand TYPES have much
different probabilities. His example of two high cards occurs
quite
often. While you and Bob may feel discussions of this nature
aren't
worthwhile, my opinion is that any discussion where mathematical
intuition can be improved has merit. In any event I felt it was a
blunder to equate a specific card combination with the hand TYPES
that were being discussed and state that they were equivalent.
>
> IMO, by posting these as examples of "blunders", you have taken
the
> level of debate down a notch.
Another matter of opinion. By criticizing Linda directly Bob has
decided that other forum members are fair game. I thought he
should
feel what it was like when the shoe was on the other foot.
> However, I do agree with you and
> others that the key yet-to-be-answered-by-either-side question
is
> how much do the simplifications of the Boyd strategy cost? If
the
> recent post by kiwiboy is accurate, the cost of holding J vs
> JTsuited is about 0.015%. That is probably the biggest of the
> differences from perfect strategy that Bob listed. If that
figure
> is correct, then the total cost of the Boyd strategy is probably
> considerably less than Bob's 0.3%+ estimate. Once someone
> calculates the actual EV of using the Boyd strategy, players can
> make an intelligent decision about whether the simplifications
are
> worth the cost.
Yes, the cost is much less than Bob's estimate. Especially when
you
consider a couple of Bob's claims were wrong.
>
> Dan Paymar's JOB strategy makes numerous simplifications. Yet
> Paymar quotes jazbo as determining that the total cost is
0.01%.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@> wrote:
> That's the kind of info that would help end this discussion.
I'm still not sure anything can really end this debate short of a
massive controlled study or administrator intervention 
Dick
