![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) gerald_duck |
Tue 2005-07-12 10:52 |
OK. Let's quantify.
Say you know that, from your opponent's perspective, it is 90% likely you have brown hair, and 60% likely you have brown eyes. You are about to confirm one of those facts, and wish to do so without giving any information about the other one. The two are independent, so overall the probability of both brown eyes and hair is 54%, brown hair only is 36%, brown eyes only 6%, neither 4%.
I think the 36% versus 6% means that when you have both you should six times out of seven exhibit brown hair, and one time out of seven exhibit brown eyes. If you do anything else, your opponent can exploit the systematic bias… if they spot it.
But yes, bluff is an issue apart from such strategising. Bluffing is simply adopting a strategy other than that which your opponent thinks you've adopted. In general, the more subtle the strategies, the more subtle the bluffs. (-8 |
|