In a recent note, john gilmore said:
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 02:26:31 +0000
> >
> >A perfect poker player can't be bluffed. But neither is he capable of
> >bluffing.
>
> and I am not sure quite what this means. That conceded, von Neumann and
> Morgenstern have long since analyzed poker; and optimal game-theoretic
> strategies for any/every player make crucial use of bluffing.
>
After a little research I'll stand corrected. From:
Linkname: Bluff (poker) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluff_(poker)
In the card game of poker, to bluff is to bet or raise with an
inferior hand, or with a hand believed to be inferior. ...
I had (mis)understood it to mean to bet in such manner as to
provide one's opponent with deliberately misleading information.
But:
Optimal bluffing also requires that the bluffs must be performed in
such a manner that opponents cannot tell when a player is bluffing
or not. ...
I.e. one's bets should convey no information, neither correct nor
misleading.
And I was largely motivated by the (astonishing) result that in
some (most? all?) games of strategy, a perfect player does no
better against a very poor opponent than against a opponent who
also plays perfectly.
By using password rules, rather than choosing randomly, I
defend myself against an intruder who counts on my biasing
my choice toward passwords that violate the rules, at the
cost of increased vulnerability to an intruder who counts
on my obeying the rules.
-- gil
--
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
