Spisu

You're right. My apologies. I did misread those 100 100 50 numbers as being for A K and A-K. And the oddity of adding in a frequency distribution for a single card finesse, the 200 omitted hands, and the 500 wins of a first finesse (450 is max in 600 hands and 600 right for 800, so it is wrong either way) all raised red flags. But unfortunately, the one absurdity that slipped by me was the chart figure showing a four to one ratio between wins by lone honors to those from double honors (200 to 50). So it's still a terrible example to supposedly prove a point...I will try to edit out the initial post.

Removed by author

Removed by author

Removed by originator due to unproven conclusions based on data presented.

I'm afraid I've had it with the lies, insults, and deceit, and worst of all, bizarre and arrogant ignorance in nearly every field from a group I expected to be intelligent and open minded. I have had to explain things as crazy as being attacked for questioning RC by people with no clue as to the actual basis for RC...And accused of saying things I did not say and believing absurdities. It's obvious there will be no use to go forward. I haven't encountered a single open mind. I can't imagine anyone here interested in truths outside his/her dogmas or who could even recognize the truth. If there was any interested person here I'm letting down, I wish you had made it known, and I apologize.

There is no case where I said RC gave false or bad odds. I will post a $100 reward to the BBO account of the person who finds and cites where I said those words. If something is based on a fallacy, that doesn't mean it can't come up with the right answer and even incorporate other compensating fallacies or errors, particularly when the answer is already known. Maybe there is an error but I do not know offhand of a case where in its common uses RC doesn't come up the correct advice. (Now, outside of normal play, I have seen experts criticized for not applying RC to some inane spot cards where the card was not a prior interest. THAT would be an error to me, but it's not "bad odds".)

Thank you. I appreciate your going there and checking it out, but I believe there is a factor there you didn't pick up on. I had planned to bring it up tomorrow and will do so. The other question brings in a nine card suit and a distributional issue I've avoided to concentrate on the principle without that side issue. I always finesse twice because the strategy I follow focusing on honors has me winning about 66% of the cases. That strategy is that isolating East's hand sets one up with a priori divided honors 50% of the time compared to East's a priori 25% to hold both honors. And, others to the contrary, those odds do not change when events consistent with the strategy occur...Which is all events in roughly 75% of the deals. Note that an East's winning with an expected honor that turns out to be a king (in the absence of special information) does not change divided honors' odds unless you decide to assert "He won with THE KING!", now what do I do?!

You're just trolling now. Give it up.

I greatly appreciate the moderate tone. I may see things a bit differently because of my background in every science, math, logic, Martin Gardner style skepticism (and bridge). So I was shocked at the reaction from what I expected to be reflective and open minded experts. I sought data here actually to see if I could possibly be wrong. But that hasn't happened. (Quite the contrary.) So the next step could be an element that may really surprise you, maybe even give you pause.

I have said repeatedly, I am interested in the underlying premise, not any and every case, because (as surely some informed here must know), there are cases attributed to RC where a choice between equals CAN make a difference. (Some opening leads for example or possibly other cases where an actual difference can exist between options and/or their consequences.) There is a massive chasm between an actual difference and a pretended and fallacious difference...You see, if you knew the K was in an E's hand and E later won a double finesse for K-Q with that K, then there is a mathematical basis that the Q might have been played if there. But there would be then an actual difference between the K and Q by your prior knowledge. But I did show you an example where the premise of RC breaks down.

The actual quote you deceitfully alter is: "I am familiar with Bayes and the restricted choice folks' claim it is based on the Bayes postulate known also by some as the "Equidistribution of Ignorance." Factual information to explain any related point would be welcome, however.

Please come back if you have something to add. BTW, did you see the challenge on the ACBL Encyclopedia Example 1 under Restricted Choice? Explaining why the numbers don't seem to add up would be a big "something".

As you probably know, "Bunkum" was not my word. It was one of your cohorts who used the word (that's why it was in quotes if you didn't notice), and I cited him to disagree with his point. And, as to Newton vs Einstein's general theory, there is no comparison. My point is as I've said before here...If you say 2+2=4 because 2 cubed divided by the # of integers added also equals 4, then an honest mathematician has a duty to speak up. I did not say you can't get a right answer by the wrong means. But if you understand Bayes and RC, please share how actual Bayesian statistics impacted RC other than being used incorrectly to presume a player from double honors does so randomly but with no updating or testing to verify that presumption. Actual facts would be appreciated.

Your belief that the "first play" of two equals comes "after the first finesse lost" is noted, but the Nobel committee would be interested in your disproving time reversal invariance."