1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.GAMES.BACKGAMMON

  • They are deaf but not dumb

    From MK@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 29 20:46:12 2023
    I should have said "They are deaf but not mute",
    because they sure are as dumb as can be also.

    In a post in BGO,

    https://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?read=210964

    someone likened "backgammon pros" reactions
    to the “take with 25% rule" in the early days of the
    doubling cube to people's (including math PHDs)
    reactions to "a young lady"s solution to the "Monty
    Hall Problem" in the 1990's.

    The latter "problem" is due to the correct answers
    depending on the wording of the question and has
    nothing in common with the "25% rule" but what is
    worse is that the "avalanche of insults and personal
    attacks" against her, that he likens to the arguments
    against the doubling skill, (supposedly proven by a
    "simple equation" using "grade-school arithmetic"),
    is more like what is inflicted upon the critics of the
    so-called "cube skill" by the fabricators, promoters,
    defenders of that cube skill fantasy...

    The poster finishes by saying:

    "It seems that many people are hardwired to
    "react this way when confronted with new
    "information or facts that conflict with their
    "existing beliefs or intuition. They start by
    "denouncing the validity of the new-to-them
    "information ..... and then they join up with
    "other like-minded naysayers and ridicule
    "anyone who doesn’t see things the way they do.

    How true! This is indeed what I (and some others)
    have been subjected to in RGB for the past 25 years.

    If only they could hear what comes out of their own
    mouths...! :(

    Speaking for myself, my objection is not to the "25%
    rule" being applicable during the final stages of the
    games but to the fallacy that cubeful equities can be
    accurately calculated during the middle and even the
    beginning stages of the games, applying the current
    elaborate cube formulas to cubeless winning chances,
    (which are inaccurate themselves to begin with).

    Even though the "cube skill theory" bullshit can be
    easily debunked by simple empirical experiments,
    the mentally ill gamblegammon playing gamblers
    won't/can't bring themselves to doing some simply
    because they won't/can't even admit their gambling
    addiction, (hich is said to be harder to give up than
    alcohol/tobacco/drug/etc. addictions).

    One thing that reading the article in BGO made me
    realize, as a small consolation, is that even if it was
    Marilyn vos Savant who had said all that I had said,
    RGB's inbred pack of sick puppies, including math
    PHD's and all, would have attacked her just the same...

    MK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 30 00:39:53 2023
    On 6/29/2023 11:46 PM, MK wrote:
    someone likened "backgammon pros" reactions
    to the “take with 25% rule" in the early days of the
    doubling cube to people's (including math PHDs)
    reactions to "a young lady"s solution to the "Monty
    Hall Problem" in the 1990's.

    The latter "problem" is due to the correct answers
    depending on the wording of the question

    It is certainly true that wording the question differently,
    or making different assumptions from the usual unstated
    assumptions, can change the answer. But I have posed this
    problem to many people, and made sure they understand the
    problem correctly, including all the relevant background
    assumptions, and *still* many people get the problem wrong
    and refuse to accept the correct answer.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MK@21:1/5 to Timothy Chow on Fri Jun 30 02:06:33 2023
    On June 29, 2023 at 10:39:56 PM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

    On 6/29/2023 11:46 PM, MK wrote:

    The latter "problem" is due to the correct answers
    depending on the wording of the question

    I have posed this problem to many people, and
    made sure they understand the problem correctly,
    including all the relevant background assumptions,
    and *still* many people get the problem wrong and
    refuse to accept the correct answer.

    I find the reason for this more broadly intrigueing,
    interesting than the specific problem itself. Why
    do you think this is?

    If it's a matter of simple logic, once people say they
    understand the problem, they should be able to give
    the correct answer. What gives?

    I think this is the ultimate proof that communication
    through "word-based" language can never be exact.
    A third party arbiter can not determine which side's
    understanding is the correct one either.

    People can be honest enough, at least to themselves,
    to not say they understand something when they don't
    but they may understand differently, "misunderstand".

    Of course, the person explaining may be the one who
    misunderstands and "misexplains".

    About the "cube skill theory" debate, obviously I believe
    that my arguments, (based on the inaccuracy of all the
    calculations that go into it), are the correct ones but I
    wonder if at least part of the disagreement may be due
    to "miscommunication"?

    And to contribute my good efforts towards it, lately I
    have been trying to avoid posting in half-sentences
    in order to be less wordy. I figure that if I am going to
    bother with spending any time at all for posting here,
    I should try to do it right even if it takes me twice as
    long. As a nihilist, I think this is about the best that I
    can towards doing anything temporarily meaningful...

    MK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 30 08:26:50 2023
    On 6/30/2023 5:06 AM, MK wrote:
    I find the reason for this more broadly intrigueing,
    interesting than the specific problem itself. Why
    do you think this is?

    If it's a matter of simple logic, once people say they
    understand the problem, they should be able to give
    the correct answer. What gives?

    I think this is the ultimate proof that communication
    through "word-based" language can never be exact.
    A third party arbiter can not determine which side's
    understanding is the correct one either.

    I agree with your point that language is inexact, but I
    think the explanation here is much simpler. People don't
    use logic. They rely on their gut instinct and their
    experience, which they trust more than they trust logic.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MK@21:1/5 to Timothy Chow on Fri Jun 30 19:02:29 2023
    On June 30, 2023 at 6:26:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

    People don't use logic. They rely on their
    gut instinct and their experience, which
    they trust more than they trust logic.

    What about "gut logic"? Am I inventing things
    or is there such a notion already by chance?

    I believe it is possible for people to know the
    correct answer but still give the wrong one. I
    want to bring backgammon somehow back
    into this and maybe some of you will help out.

    Even though the contestants have nothing to
    lose and only fail to win something, when they
    get the wrong door, it is worded as they "lose".
    So there is the psychology of gambling at play.

    Does the show give away a car every week?
    Once or twice a month? How long has it been
    since the last one? Is one due this time? Does
    the host try to steer the contestants to win or
    to lose as needed? Which will he try this week?

    A contestant may know the correct answer but
    because of such questions, he may choose the
    opposite answer by relying on his "gut logic" in
    order to outmaneuver the game host.

    I can personally relate to this in backgammon.
    Since the days of Jellyfish, I wrote about things
    like how I thought I could detect suspiciously
    inferior moves by the bots, looking ahead and
    preparing for the upcoming dice, and preempt
    by making an inferior move myself also, etc.

    I also often openly wondered whether my doing
    so did not hurt more than help me. In the worst
    case, it probably averaged out over time anyway.

    Other people may deviate from their normal play
    by feeling that they will get lucky and roll a jocker
    on the next turn, etc.

    Anyone else willing to confess to having used
    "gut logic" in backgammon, gamblegammon or
    in other games, game show contests, etc.??

    MK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 1 09:05:51 2023
    On 6/30/2023 10:02 PM, MK wrote:
    Does the show give away a car every week?
    Once or twice a month? How long has it been
    since the last one? Is one due this time? Does
    the host try to steer the contestants to win or
    to lose as needed? Which will he try this week?

    A contestant may know the correct answer but
    because of such questions, he may choose the
    opposite answer by relying on his "gut logic" in
    order to outmaneuver the game host.

    I agree with you partially. In the real game show, for
    example, the contestant is not always given the opportunity
    to switch. So the "correct" answer is not correct in practice.

    But even if I specify that the host is required by law to
    always open a door and offer the opportunity to choose another
    door, and that the door opened must not be the door that you
    chose and must not contain a prize, there are plenty of people
    who still insist that it doesn't matter if you switch.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)