Asking questions that provide no information isn't really bluff, it's just not giving out information you don't have to.
I meant... Suppose my analysis was correct in that asking question about the commonest features of your character gave you the most information. And you had a very common hair colour (brown) and a fairly common eye colour (brown), but asked about eye colour, then he might incorrectly deduce you had brown hair, and act on that assumption. Is that not bluff?
Going back to Cluedo for a moment,
Agh. Yes, you're right. I was always hopeless at cluedo :)
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
Agh. Yes, you're right. I stopped the stategic thinking way too early. That strategy is best to not give away information when you have brown both. Though I forsee an unstable equilibrium: until your opponent figures it out, doing hair most of the time, then switching to the uninformative strategy, then letting the hair-chance creep up when he isn't looking... I don't know.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I meant... Suppose my analysis was correct in that asking question about the commonest features of your character gave you the most information. And you had a very common hair colour (brown) and a fairly common eye colour (brown), but asked about eye colour, then he might incorrectly deduce you had brown hair, and act on that assumption. Is that not bluff?
Going back to Cluedo for a moment,
Agh. Yes, you're right. I was always hopeless at cluedo :)
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